Using Nikon DX Lenses on FX Cameras

Because the glass elements in a camera lens are round, lenses project a circular image onto a camera’s sensor plane. This projected image circle must be large enough to cover the rectangular sensor, like so:

FX Image Circle

Lenses designed for Nikon DX generally project a smaller image circle because they only need to cover the smaller DX sensor. This enables a DX lens to be smaller and lighter, but also means that these lenses are not suitable, by design, for FX cameras. For the Canon ecosystem this law is absolute, as EF-S lenses, designed for a smaller APS-C size sensor, cannot be mounted on full frame EF bodies.

The great thing about Nikon is that they do their best to offer backward compatibility. Mounting DX lenses on FX bodies has always been possible, with the FX DSLR automatically cropping the image frame to only output the area covered by the DX sensor.

DX Image Circle

Additionally, you can set the camera to output the full FX frame regardless of the mounted lens, by accessing Shooting Menu -> Image Area -> Auto DX crop -> OFF.

You might expect this to spell trouble with DX lenses because of extreme vignetting. Indeed this is what one sees when mounting many types of dedicated DX lens, espsecially zooms, on FX bodies. Here is an example of what you see with a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR lens on a Nikon FX camera (single frame from a HD video sequence recorded with a Nikon D600):

Nikon 18-200mm on FX

The bad news is that high quality FX lenses like Nikon’s golden “trinity” are intimidatingly expensive, big and heavy.

The good news is that not all DX lenses behave as you might expect. Two DX lenses that I dearly love are my Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX and my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX. These two represent the best of DX as they are small, fast, light and affordable, yet still perform excellently. What many owners may not know is that both of these lenses cover the full FX frame circle!

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX on FX

Until recently, the only fast modern 35mm lens that Nikon offered for FX was the expensive professional 35mm f/1.4G prime. With the recent announcement of the 35mm f/1.8G ED the situation has improved a lot from the affordability perspective. Yet the 35mm f/1.8G DX is the most affordable still, and one of Nikon’s most popular lenses to date – for a reason!

How can you expect it to perform on FX? I was pleasantly surprised. As expected, FX corner performance is nothing to write home about, and some noticeable vignetting is visible. However at larger apertures (larger than F8) the vignetting is bearable. Large aperture prime lenses are often used to draw attention to a single object, and then corner sharpness is seldom crucial. Vignetting may be aesthetically pleasing, and can be corrected to some extent. The center performance remains impressive, as this is what the lens has been designed for.

This little 35mm’s small size makes it unobtrusive and truly portable – especially desirable qualities for street photography. 35mm counts as moderate wide angle on FX which allows for just a bit more flexibility in creating interesting compositions compared to a 50mm “normal” lens.

Here are some examples:

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX at f/1.8

35mm f/1.8G DX at f/1.8 (straight from .NEF – distortion and vignetting not corrected)

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX at f/5.6

35mm f/1.8G DX at f/5.6 (straight from .NEF – distortion and vignetting not corrected)

In my opinion these photographs are quite usable. With some vignetting correction in Adobe Lightroom, the photo at f/2.8 looks as follows – compare it to the supplied photo taken with the large Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED – one of Nikon’s professional FX “trinity” lenses.

Both photographs below were taken at 35mm f/2.8, but which was taken with which lens? At a casual glance these photographs are hard to tell apart – the top photograph was taken with the 35mm f/1.8, while the bottom photograph was taken with the 24-70mm f/2.8.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX at f/2.8

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G at f/2.8

Even zooming in to 100% pixel-level detail shows little difference, as the corners are out of focus anyway (in both cases, the 35mm f/1.8 is on the left):

Side by side 35mm Center

Side by side 35mm Corner

Caveat: starting at f/5.6, and especially at longer distances, the smaller image circle does become visible. With decreasing apertures, vignetting increases in the extreme corners. Personally I mainly use fast prime lenses at large to medium apertures, so this need not be a problem. Be aware, however, that in very bright light without using an ND filter this lens will becomes less usable as you will have to resort to smaller apertures. This makes the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens great for street photography, but less so for e.g. studio work where depth of field needs is attained by smaller apertures.

Uncorrected image with focal point at infinity, f/5.6. Here vignetting is already becoming intrusive:

35mm f/5.6 Uncorrected

At f/22, vignetting is very clearly defined (just as the dust on my Nikon D600’s sensor):

35mm f/22 Uncorrected

Uncorrected image with close focal point, f/5.6. At this closer focal distance vignetting is much less pronounced than at infinity, and not as intrusive:

35mm close f/5.6 Uncorrected

At f/22, vignetting is again clearly defined, but less severe than at longer focal distances:

35mm Close f/22 Uncorrected

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

The other lens that I want to talk about is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Regarded as one of the best ultra-wide-angle lenses for DX, it has the same performance on DX as a 16-24mm f/4.0 lens would have on an FX body. But what happens when you put it on an FX body?

At 11mm the vignetting is rather extreme:
Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm

At 15mm the vignetting starts to disappear:

Tokina 11-16 @ 15mm

As we zoom in to 16mm, vignetting becomes less and less of an issue, up to the point where there is almost no visible vignetting any more at 16mm f/2.8:

Tokina 11-16 @ 16mm

The corners can be improved by stopping down – here the extreme right-hand edge is shown at 15mm f/2.8 (left) versus 15mm f/5.6 (right):

Tokina 11-16mm @ 15mm Edge

The corner performance is noticeably degraded compared to dedicated FX lenses, but if you are willing to live with this you have a very affordable ultra wide angle lens for an FX camera, usable up to 15mm at an aperture of f/2.8! Keep in mind that the only other lenses that come close are the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX or the excellent, but much more expensive Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED.

Conclusion

In this post I showed you how to use two very different but popular DX lenses for something they were never meant to do. But against all odds, these lenses are surprisingly adept at their job and will be able to give you great creative potential without adding much in the way of cost. This is especially attractive for amateur photographers taking the leap from DX to FX.

If you can live with the limitations of such a set-up, at least your DX lenses may have some use before you fully move to FX. With them you can still enjoy the better low-light performance, brighter viewfinders and more control over depth of field that FX offers.

Do you know of any other DX lenses that work well on FX? We’d love to hear about it in the comments.

Some examples of the 35mm f/1.8, from the streets of Trento, Italy:

35mm f/1.8G Sample #1

35mm f/1.8G Sample #2

Some examples of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, from the streets of Trento, Italy:

Tokina 11-16mm Sample #1

Tokina 11-16mm Sample #2

Tokina 11-16mm Sample #2

Comments

  1. 1
    ) Brian
    February 17, 2014 at 10:20 pm

    Excellent again. More and more I find myself reading your site VS the other big photo blog/how to sites.

  2. February 17, 2014 at 10:22 pm

    tokina 11-16mm is indeed a great lens to provide super wide in a pinch on FF. in fact it is mountable on canon EF, and has the same property. 15-16mm is totally usable!

    • February 19, 2014 at 1:46 am

      Thanks for the info. Is this the Canon EF-S version that is mountable on EF, or do you use a Nikon F to Canon EF mount converter for this? Regards, Francois.

      • February 19, 2014 at 5:03 pm

        that is direct ef-s on ef, no adapter required :)

  3. 3
    ) B. Gregory
    February 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm

    I ordered a 36MP FF Sony A7r and a FF 24-70 Leitz zoom when they were announced in October. The camera came, the lens is yet to be released, it’s coming soon.

    I’ve been shooting with Sony E mount lenses for the NEX crop frame series. There is a similar setting on the Sony where I can crop down to the C sized image area at 16MP, I found that if I shoot with the vignette showing then crop the image in Lightroom to remove the shadowed edges I get an image of about 21 MP. I just compose toward the center of the frame and crop the edges. If I’m careful it works. Most of the time I get the image I plan to see. My experience is similar to yours with variables of focal length & aperture changing the size of the vignette.

    I’m using 2nd generation Sony E mount lenses & the quality is fine. I’m looking forward to the arrival of the Leitz lens.

  4. 4
    ) Kambiz
    February 17, 2014 at 10:53 pm

    Interesting article. I still have my 35/1.8Dx lens. While as this article points out, it is still usable to some degree on my D800E, I still liked to get a 35mm FX lens. Given that I don’t use 35mm very often, I really could not justify the price for any of the f/1.4 lenses, and even the new 35/1.8FX is priced a bit too high, IMHO. So I ended up grabbing a used 35mm f/2D just a couple of days ago, at almost a 3rd of the price of the new 35/1.8FX. I will receive it tomorrow and I hope it serves the purpose for our occasional need for a small 35mm prime on FX.

    • 5
      ) Carlo
      February 17, 2014 at 11:38 pm

      Kambiz, I really appreciate if you can post a short comment about your 35DX vs 35AF-D lens ’cause I’m also looking for a used 35 AF-D. Thanks

      • 14
        ) Kambiz
        February 18, 2014 at 1:51 am

        Ok, will try to remember that. In the meantime, you can check out some good reviews online. e.g., this one: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_35mm_lens_comparison/Nikkor_35mm_f1-4G_vs_35mm_f2D_vs_DX_35mm_f1-8G_compared.shtml . Based on reviews like this, I don’t expect it to be as sharp in the corners when wide open. But when stopped down a bit, the sharpness towards the center should match, and center sharpness is really all I would care about in most of my 35mm shots where actually I would probably prefer a bit of corner softness.

        • 37
          ) Carlo
          February 19, 2014 at 4:52 pm

          Thanks for your nice reply. I just wonder how does 35 AF-D perform vs 35 DX lens on your FF camera. On your interesting link seems that the AF-D is a poor performer for landscape but it could works for portrait since the low border Quality can help to isolate the subject ….

        • 38
          ) Carlo
          February 19, 2014 at 4:55 pm

          Thanks for your nice reply. I just wonder if 35 AF-D is better or not compared to DX lens. On your interesting link seems that the AF-D is a poor performer for landscape but it could works for portrait since the low border Quality can help to isolate the subject ….

          • 40
            ) Kambiz
            February 19, 2014 at 5:04 pm

            I got the lens yesterday and took a few quick test shots. As expected, it seems sharp enough in the center even at f/2. Corner sharpness improves significantly when you stop down to f/5.6. And I find color rendering pleasant, and not much different from our 35/1.8G DX on our D7000. All in all, I am pretty happy with it for the money I paid for it, and I think it will certainly serve my purpose for snapshot family pictures and when I like to keep my bag very light but want to go a bit wider than my 50mm.

  5. 6
    ) Tomas
    February 17, 2014 at 11:42 pm

    This are the 2 next lenses that i’m buying :) I have a D5100 (i’ll do manual focus on the tokina :P)

    Good news that if some day I switch to FX these lenses will be usable :)

    • 12
      ) Scott M
      February 18, 2014 at 1:39 am

      A little over a year ago, Tokina released an updated 11-16 DX II which does autofocus on the D40-D5200. Originally there was a significant premium over the older version, but the difference is down to $60 now so unless you’re buying a used one, you should definitely get the new one. (I should mention that the AF is a little bit louder than the Nikon AF-S motors.)

      Also, I’m only assuming that the FX performance hasn’t changed between the two versions. Francois, I see that you linked to the version II lens but you never wrote it out, can you be specific as to which version you used?

      • February 19, 2014 at 1:52 am

        Hi Scott
        Well spotted! I used a version I lens in this review. My understanding is that the optical formula did not change between version I and II ; only the AF motor and the coatings were updated. The optical FF performance should therefore be identical. Personally I recommend the version I if you can get hold of it as it is cheaper, and the AF performance (except for entry level DX cameras that lack a built-in AF motor) and flare control are good as it is.

    • 18
      ) Ali
      February 18, 2014 at 5:03 am

      I have both lens and a D5100 :) quite happy with them. By the way you can get the Pro II version of the Tokina which has AF motor so will focus on D5100. It’s a bit more expensive but worth it in my opinion :)

      • 22
        ) Tomas
        February 18, 2014 at 9:02 am

        Yeah I know…..but I was planning to buy an used one….for 400 bucks….there is a ebay seller selling the Pro II version refurbished at 435 (refurbished vs used…I really don’t want to go over 450, my budget limit)…I know that it would be better to have the AF….but lets be honest….in a UWA everything is almost in focus :D even at f/2.8 (hyperfocal distance is 4.5 meters at 16mm and f/2.8)….so autofocusing won’t be so hard.
        Thanks for sharing opinions.

        • 23
          ) Tomas
          February 18, 2014 at 9:04 am

          I’m also considering the Tokina 12-24 f/4, but I prefer that extra stop of light and that extra milimiter in the wide side.

  6. February 17, 2014 at 11:55 pm

    the really reaaaaaally cheap, nikkor 18-55 is very usable too, i don’t remenber, but i think its to 24mm or more!!!!!

  7. 8
    ) Mike
    February 18, 2014 at 12:29 am

    Good and nice Article. But why do you accept
    That dirty sensor camera. I would return it
    since its faulty.

    • February 19, 2014 at 1:54 am

      Or I should just get one of those sensor gel sticks! :)

  8. 9
    ) T72
    February 18, 2014 at 12:58 am

    Nikon 12-24/4 DX is also great on my D600. From 16mm vignetting disappear, so you have a great and light weight 16-24/4 on a FX body.

  9. 10
    ) lesheck
    February 18, 2014 at 12:59 am

    Nikkor 17-55 2.8 worka on FF very well. It covera whole image area from 27mm which gives 27-55 2.8 lens with really good image quality.

    • February 19, 2014 at 1:56 am

      Also, thanks for this. The poor man’s 24-70, so to speak (although the 17-55 is by no means a poor man’s lens!)

  10. 11
    ) autofocusross
    February 18, 2014 at 1:22 am

    These lenses, whatever you choose and work with, are all very well, but Nikon don’t do a good support job. I swapped up my trusty 18 – 105 for the new 18 – 140mm three months ago.

    There is STILL no firmware upgrade (for distortion correction in-camera) available for this lens on my D5200, yet the D5300 launched about the same time, has the firmware. It’s the same camera for pete’s sake (well, just about).

    Until Nikon fully support lens launches, I am keeping my money in my wallet from now on.

  11. 13
    ) Rocco Yiu
    February 18, 2014 at 1:49 am

    Tokina 12-24mm DX Pro works well on FX from 19mm onward. What a pleasant surprise.

  12. 15
    ) Alan Barker
    February 18, 2014 at 2:00 am

    On a slightly different point, is it fair to say that, as sensor ‘sizes’ get bigger, then using a DX lens on an FX body in DX crop mode is not as much of a compromise as it was?

    • 16
      ) autofocusross
      February 18, 2014 at 3:30 am

      Alan, technically, you are completely correct, as there are more Mp to the square mm on the current crop of FX models, then, the image derived will always prove to be of a much higher res than in the days when a 12mp DX was used with an FX lens.

      However (there’s always an ‘however’ isn’t there!)

      All but the costliest lenses have a zone of optimum sharpness, contrast and to an extent, colour fidelity, in the centre two-thirds of the field of coverage. As you (generally) approach the edge (in landscape orientation) and particularly, the corners, the performance drops off.

      Thus, using a DX lens on an FX body may run you into image quality problems, depending on the lens, the aperture, the lighting, and the technique.

      Clearly, if you are going to use a costly DX lens on an FX body, you perhaps should have spent the money on an FX lens anyway?

      If and when funds are available I intend to upgrade to the D800 and a couple of good zooms, or by then it may be the D900. I will probably keep my DX but may ‘give’ it to my wife. It certainly punches above it’s weight producing great images, so I am in no hurry. I just wish Nikon would update the firmware quickly for current camera models, when new lenses are in the pipeline (see my post above).

    • 17
      ) Peter Goodman
      February 18, 2014 at 3:30 am

      Hi, that is a reasonable statement yes. However the main compromise using in dx crop mode is that you will have a viewfinder effectively smaller than a native crop sensor camera. Not a problem for liveview use though. I think the great thing here is that what with a dx lens we actually get more than dx coverage, and in some cases almost entire fx coverage. I use this 35mm 1.8g dx on my fx cameras and provided you stick between about f2.8 and f4 there is little vignetting at any focus distance. It is an ansolute bargain for fx users! Pete.

  13. 19
    ) Rodrigo Gazmuri
    February 18, 2014 at 6:02 am

    Very interesting and useful article. Just for being precise: I believe when you display the circles comparing the DX vs FX image circles in the sensors the area of the images provided should be different. In the article both images cover the same landscape area so the DX image shows the same as the FX but smaller. If you use a DX lens from the same position you should see less of the area due to the crop factor. Do you agree?

    • February 22, 2014 at 2:43 am

      Dear Rodrigo

      Thanks for the comment; you are right. The images with overlayed crop areas are simulated, and yes, if you compare an identical (absolute) focal length DX and FX lens then the content of the images will be different as the the DX lens will generally have a smaller image circle. The crop factor is however not the reason for the difference, this only comes into play when you look at the sensor area, i.e. the image circle only depends on the lens and not on the sensor.

      My idea was to show how the image circle will differ between a DX lens and an FX lens at identical *equivalent* focal lengths, e.g. 24mm on FX vs 16mm on DX, yielding the same cropped image in both cases.

      Regards
      F

  14. February 18, 2014 at 6:40 am

    Try using a DX lens on a D800 which is set on 1:2 mode. Very little if any crop problem.

  15. 21
    ) Michael
    February 18, 2014 at 6:54 am

    Always enjoy your comments and advice. Currently own D7000 with 50mm F/1.8, 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6, and DX lenses — Nikon 40mm F/2.8 and Tokina 12-24mm F/4. Purchasing Nikon D610 this week with 105mm F/2.8 micro. Anxious to try 40mm DX on the D610 as well as the Tokina lens. Will let you know how they perform. Troubled over decision to buy D610 but seems better step up than D7100 (from D7000). Will keep the 7000 and use for wildlife — as soon as I purchase Nikon 300mm F/4 with TC-14e.

    Keep up the good work. Your site has been extremely helpful to me in my transition to digital. Shot Nikon SLR film cameras for over 40 years, before trading in (for very little) at Adorama.

  16. February 18, 2014 at 9:53 am

    Another very good lens for this is the Nikon DF 12-24/4. which covers the entire frame of the full frame cameras eith hardly any loss of quality at all from 17mm., or even 16 mm. at a pinch. I’m sorry I sold mine, as it was (as it eventually turned out) far better than the Nikon VR 16-35, albeit with a more limited range.

  17. 25
    ) Bonetti
    February 18, 2014 at 10:22 am

    I’m in the same boat…. I primarily shoot my real estate listings. The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 performs great on my old D90 never had a complaint with that lens, on my D600 not so great. Even when zoomed out, there’s still noticeable vignetting (correctible in Lightroom), but the overall image doesn’t have the same “snap” as what I get out of the old D90 (for whatever reason). I rented the Zeiss 15mm and put it on the D600 thinking that would be the answer, but it’s not a huge step better (in my opinion) than the results and color I get with the Tokina on an APS-C camera. Also, the lens cover on the Zeiss 15mm slips off/dumps if you tilt the camera down which is a bit disconcerting. I can leave my D90/D7100 with the Tokina 11-16mm lens on it in my car without much worry, the D600 with a Zeiss 15mm leaves me feeling a bit more anxious if something were to happen to that setup. Another “cheaper” option is the older Nikon 20mm f2.8D for full frame, but I still like the Tokina colors better. Bottom line is I’m thinking about ditching the D600 and going back to a used D7100. I don’t need massive files, and most of my work gets dummied down to 72 dpi at 1024 pixels wide…for me the difference in dynamic range is negligible/minimal with properly exposed shots. I also like the extra length I get with the APS sensor and the 24-70mmm and 70-200mm lenses. Also, I like the selectable focus points wider arrangement much better in the D7100 vs D600. The only other consideration I have would be to take the Tokina 11-16mm with Nikon to Fuji adapter and put it on the new X-T1 body and manually focus….That said, and off topic, my favorite non-wide angle lens on either APS-C or full frame sensor is the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton SLII—manual focus, but it’s a real cracker!

  18. 26
    ) Martin
    February 18, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    When I moved from the D90 to the D600 I tried all of my DX lenses on the FX body. The Tamron 10-24 was very useable from about 13-14 mm onward. That gave a super wide angle lens for a very low budget. The UV filter had to be removed though and borders and corners were very soft at small apertures. Stopped down it was quite ok for general photography.

  19. 27
    ) Keith R. Starkey
    February 18, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Good information.

    I’m interested to know why, in the first set of the two gas station examples above, that the 35mm DX shot wide open did not produce a brighter photo. I would have thought the wider aperture would have produced equal, if not more, light than the f/5.6 photo.

    Thanks again.

    • 28
      ) AM
      February 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm

      Vignetting is more visible when shooting wide open. That’s why the photo looks darker than when the lens is stopped down.

    • February 19, 2014 at 2:00 am

      Dear Keith
      To compensate for the larger aperture the camera used a faster shutter speed; I shot all photographs in aperture priority mode. If I instead set everything to manual, then the f/1.8 photographs would have been overexposed, or the f/5.6 photographs underexposed, or both. In this case the camera’s light metering system judged the scene’s intensity slightly differently between aperture settings; probably because it misjudged the darker corners caused by the level of vignetting that AM mentioned.
      Regards.

  20. 29
    ) AM
    February 18, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    I believe that the reason that the sharpness is not as good on the edges of the Tokina 11-16 shot at f/2.8 and f/5.6 in the pictures above, has more to do with the DOF. Even though it is an UWA lens and DOF should be reasonable deep when shot wide open, it seems that the pictures were taken focusing on the front of the scene, thus the background is not as sharp as the front.

  21. 36
    ) Bartek
    February 19, 2014 at 5:20 am

    in Canon world it’s possible to use Tokina 12-24 on FF body from 18-19mm on. quality isn’t great but isn’t bad either.

  22. 41
    ) TW
    February 19, 2014 at 11:12 pm

    How about Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC Pzd (DX) on Nikon FX?

    • February 21, 2014 at 6:04 am

      Hi TW

      Probably that won’t work very well… Super-zooms tend to be “on the limit”, so you are almost guaranteed that large parts of the zoom range will vignette or perform very poorly. The two lenses I reviewed on FF for this article are both high-quality lenses with no or limited limited zoom ranges. The other user comments suggest that other lenses that work on FF also mostly have these characteristics (e.g. the 17-55 mm F2.8 DX).

  23. 42
    ) Paul
    February 20, 2014 at 8:37 am

    I still keep cheap old 55-300mm AF-S F/4.5-5.6G DX VR for new D600. Its sharpness is not at its best beyond 200mm or within 75mm. However, between 100mm and 150mm, it is as sharp as any Nikkor FX portrait lenses. I also reversely attach old 55mm on to 85mm to make a macro.

  24. February 20, 2014 at 11:20 am

    I am still a DX camera user (D300s, D7100) but I have realigned my lenses toward FX, my “kit” lens is the 24-120mm F/4 . I only kept 2 DX lenses, 12-24mm and 35 F/1.8 DX. All my others lenses are FX. I believe FX is in everybody future.

  25. February 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Add the Tokina 11-17 fisheye zoom to the list. Above 14mm it covers the full frame sensor just fine!

  26. February 24, 2014 at 3:57 am

    Almost the same applies to my beloved (but expensive AND heavy!) and wonderful SIGMA Art 18-35mm f/1.8 DC which I frequently use on my D700. This Sigma ART-lens is a DX-lens, but its circle of projection covers the FX sensor from 30mm to 35mm focal length without vignetting. From 28mm down to 18mm vignetting increases.
    Check out: http://www.nikonimages.com/showphoto.php?photoid=32068&showall=1
    Good article, Francoise!

  27. 48
    ) Arvind Gora
    February 25, 2014 at 5:40 am

    The reason why I like Nikon 18-105mm f/3.3-5.4 lens personally is that this lens provides a useful focal range accompanied with image stabilisation mechanism that too with consistently sharp images, and is moderately priced (though I am not a big fan of Zoom lenses because of distortion). For people on budget and seeking a versatile focal range, this lens is a no brainer choice specially when its available for such a low price as a kit lens. If you wish you can read more at http://pixelarge.com/nikkor-nikon-18-105mm-f3-3-5-4-ed-vr-review/ about this lens.

  28. 49
    ) Andy Liu
    July 6, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Thanks for the article. Found it in my attempt to figure out what I should do with my DX sigma lenses as I contemplate leaving my beloved D90 for the new D810. I have a sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 and sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8. I really don’t want to sell these.
    I’m wondering if anyone has any experience with these lenses on FX body? Maybe I can rent D800 and experiment with my lenses.

  29. 50
    ) Chris Waddell
    July 31, 2014 at 8:38 am

    Andy Liu,

    I to have Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 & 50-150 mm f/2.8. I too am seriously thinking of migrating from my existing D7000 to a second-hand D800.

    I should be ok with my Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 and as per the article, Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8. I’m not sure about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, or using the 50-150 with the Sigma APO 2 x Teleconverter?

    Quality wise, I suspect the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 G may not be exactly sparkling quality on a D800?

  30. 51
    ) Chris Waddell
    July 31, 2014 at 8:41 am

    Just a point pass on, that I have seen elsewhere, but not here is, when using DX lenses of FX bodies, apart from turning the DX auto switching off, try changing from the standard 6:4 ratio to 5:4 to lessen vignetting.

Leave a Comment