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:
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.
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):
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:
35mm f/1.8G DX at f/1.8 (straight from .NEF – distortion and vignetting not corrected)
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.
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):
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:
At f/22, vignetting is very clearly defined (just as the dust on my Nikon D600’s sensor):
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:
At f/22, vignetting is again clearly defined, but less severe than at longer focal distances:
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:
At 15mm the vignetting starts to disappear:
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:
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):
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:
Some examples of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, from the streets of Trento, Italy:
If you have enjoyed this article, please check out our in-depth Level 1 Photography Basics Course, where we explore all the basics of photography in much more detail. It is an intensive, 5+ hour course with enough material to not only get you started today, but also to serve as a reference material in the future.
Excellent again. More and more I find myself reading your site VS the other big photo blog/how to sites.
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!
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.
that is direct ef-s on ef, no adapter required :)
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ….
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 ….
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.
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 :)
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?
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
the really reaaaaaally cheap, nikkor 18-55 is very usable too, i don’t remenber, but i think its to 24mm or more!!!!!
Good and nice Article. But why do you accept
That dirty sensor camera. I would return it
since its faulty.
Or I should just get one of those sensor gel sticks! :)
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.
Thanks for this information!
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.
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!)
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.
Tokina 12-24mm DX Pro works well on FX from 19mm onward. What a pleasant surprise.
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?
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).
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.
Hi Peter Goodman,
Your comment was a while ago, but if still not clear in your mind, then maybe this will help.
Although Ipernity management is threatening to shut the site down at the end of this month(Jan 2017) see the attached image Df0_1508-2 if you’re quick enough. Only just uploading it so it should be near the first ones that show up Do a search for ‘Ron Silvester’. Then ask yourself, how much cropping has been done to get this result and then ask yourself, does it matter if the lens was only a DX version? Make yourself aware, that the focal length, if correct for the subject distance, then the DX/FX consideration is basically null and void, especially with this post processing cropping to consider. The more important thing to consider when setting up a shot like this is to understand that the focal length on DX & FX are the same; yes, the same. What has to be further considered and understood of course, that because the lenses exiting light circumference is smaller with the DX, that perhaps your distance to the subject may need to be changed or alternately, your thinking on the correct focal length to subject distance may need to be reconsidered.
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?
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
Try using a DX lens on a D800 which is set on 1:2 mode. Very little if any crop problem.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Vignetting is more visible when shooting wide open. That’s why the photo looks darker than when the lens is stopped down.
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.
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.
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.
How about Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC Pzd (DX) on Nikon FX?
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).
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.
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.
Add the Tokina 11-17 fisheye zoom to the list. Above 14mm it covers the full frame sensor just fine!
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!
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.
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.
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?
I had the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 on my D7000 and upgraded to the D750. It did not work well from an auto focus point of view so I upgraded to a used Nikkor 24-70 2.8. I was going to settle with it for a while but it just wouldn’t auto focus with the shutter for some reason. If I used a separate auto focus button it appeared to work. It may have just been my lens but it was quite frustrating.
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.
What a great article!
It’s this sort of informative stuff that’s so useful! I had my D7100 stolen in Lisbon last week and await delivery of the new D750 to replace it. I had planned to sell my beloved Tokina 11-16 and buy a ‘similar’ wide angle FX. I’ll think I’ll hang on to the Tokina and give it a try! Following evaluation and opinion I’ll provide some feedback.
Again, many thanks!
Hi, I know your post is from 2014, but I’m in a similar situation. I’m planning on moving from a D7200 to the D750. I LOVE my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens, thought I’d have to sell it, have been researching replacements for FX.
So, I’d love your imput. How has your Tokina worked on your D750? Thanks much.
Hi Jenny
No problem, you’ll love the D750 – it’s simply fantastic.
I note I did not provide the feedback I promised, so here goes!
I used the Tokina on the 750 for a while but it was not really ideal, I eventually sold it (for which, if it’s in good condition, you’ll get a good price) and purchased the 18-35 AF-S lens. This lens is brilliant and incredibly light and easy to use. I have five other FX lenses but this is on the 750 75% of the time.
See some pics here……..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
Thanks!
Victor
Hi Francois
I too, always keen to try DX lenses on FX camera =D
– 35mm DX F/1.8 produces nice bokeh and dimension [not as great as Nano]
– 18-55mm DX VR F/3.5-5.6 produces catchy nice contrast color
The Micro Nikkor 85mm f3,5 G VR Macro lens is works well on Fx. (tried)
Thanks for the great review. Have been thinking about Nikon D610 for full frame camera. I own the D7000 DX along with a few DX lenses. It’s good to know that my 35mm and 18-55 could work with FX. I became discourage about changing to FF due to the cost of FX lenses. I could not do both body and lens together in one year. Fixed incomes suck in that regard.
Best wishes for 2015 and keep up the awesome reviews.
Hi!
I tried using my Nikkor 10-24 mm Dx wide angle lens on my Nikon D750(auto Dx switched off) and found that I could use it from about 15 mm to 24 mm without any significant darkening in the corners even at smaller F-stops. A very valuable article–thanks for the information. It certainly helps when one is upgrading from DX format to FX format and not have to immediately change most of your lenses.
I’ve been telling people this for awhile. I have the Nikon 12-24mm f4 DX lens, which on a DX camera “becomes” a 18-36mm. So the widest angle of view is 18mm. I put this on my D700, which in crop mode is only about 4MP, but in Full FX mode the vignetting goes away just before 18mm, so I get a FULL FRAME 18-24mm lens with the full 12MP of my camera without spending extra money. I teach photography, and have tested the newer 10-24mm DX lens, and the vignetting goes away at 15mm, which is the same equivalent focal length you get on a DX camera, so for a fraction of what you pay for the 14-24mm, you have a 15-24mm lens!
Thanks for the article Francois, very informative. I’m looking to upgrade my D7000 to a D750 soon. Been doing lots of aurora / night sky these days and good to know my DX lenses will do the job. Best regards from Tasmania :)
Very informative articles, thanks. I’m considering and tempted to take the leap from DX (6 MP D40) to FX (D750) and have read the above with interest. I have a Sigma 10-20mm, 17-70mm and Nikon 70-300 which have served me well for a few years. Without having tried any of my lenses on a D750 am I correct in thinking all of these should perform just as well on the D750 in crop mode as on my D40 simply because I’d be only using part of the FX available sensor area (and with no problems with autofocussing). If these happen to be usable at full frame or 1.2 crop mode as well then that’s a bonus. When I eventually upgrade to some dedicated FX lenses similarly (conversely) what can I expect in terms of image quality (optically rather than pixel-wise) if using the crop modes when trying to get a bit more reach from those lenses?
You can expect good optical quality because you’re using the center of the image circle where the quality tends to be best.
Hi Francois,
Interesting article.
I’ve been using my Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my Nikon D750 whilst I save up for a Tamron SP 15-30mm f2.8.
As you mentioned it works pretty well from about 15mm, with 16mm being the best.
Is there a way you can correct for the lens distortion in Lightroom as the software doesn’t recognise it mounted on a DX body?
Is it possible to set up a lens profile?
Cheers, Vic.
Thank you so much for this post! I’m still an amateur, but have been moving into doing more work.. on the precipice of starting a business, though I’m still trying to build my portfolio.
Anyways, I bought a D90 from a photographer friend, just to play around with photography for fun. Never thought I’d actually fall in love with it. Now, I’m kicking myself because I have a cropped sensor frame camera and four DX lenses. Most of the work I do is landscapes and nature, which lends itself to an FX sensor and low noise the newer camera bodies allow for.
I currently use BOTH of the lenses mentioned in this article and they happen to be my favorite. So glad I found this article! I’m on a tight budget, so I had no idea how I was going to make the change financially, having to dump all my DX lenses. I’m thinking my best course of action is to sell my D90 body and take the leap by purchasing the D800 and still use my current lenses until I can afford to switch over completely. It’s so good to see that the exact lenses I have now could still work while I’m transitioning.
Thank you for the article, Francois! I recently bought a used d600 and took it along with my d7000 + Tokina 11-16 combo on a night shoot. I had heard that FX cameras had a crop setting but didn’t know until now that it turns on automatically. I did decide to put the 11-16 on the 600 and was happy with the results. I’m not sure if the auto crop setting was on (the viewfinder was black), so I’ll have to check into that. However I’m excited to hear that I have a couple more lenses that should work reasonably well with the 600. (I own the dx 35mm 1.8 also)
I recently upgraded to D750 from D7000 and also found out that the 35mm DX 1.8 works quite well, in 1.2 crop mode even without any vignetting. And I can confirm the Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5 works from 11 to 24 mm in 1.2 crop mode and 14-24mm in FX.
Other lenses I own: the Nikon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 VR standard kit zoom works from 20-55mm in 1.2 crop mode and 24-55mm in FX. The Nikon 55-200mm 4-5.6 VR works at the whole zoom range in 1.2 crop mode and from 135-200mm in FX.
The Tamron 18-270 3.5-6.3 VC (the old one, not the PzD) is not capable of covering the FX frame at all and only from 200-270mm in 1.2 crop mode at infinity focus, which means this one is rather not useful on a full frame body.
Also the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 C – unfortunately not even covering the 1.2 crop size at any focal length. So this one stays my favorite DX zoom ;-)
Cheers, Joe
I use the 35mm 1.8g DX on my D750 at 1.2 crop mode and there’s absolutely no vingetting at f2.8.
Thanks to all for your replies about the DX lenses on the D750. Based on your responses I bought a D750 last weekend and have been delighted with how easy and well It works with my DX lenses. Great advice, thanks.
Hi i own the AF-S 35mm F1.8 G lens i use on my D7000, and i have a D600 coming today. My question is if i leave the automatic Dx crop feature on in my D600 will my 35mm still suffer from the Vignetting? Or do you only see it when using the entire full frame sensor?
Hi,
I have a reverse question. I use Nikon D750. I have a 50 mm 1.8 FX lens. I was planning to buy a 85 mm 1.8 FX lens. Question is: Will D750 and 85 mm combo be the same as D750 in DX mode and using 50 mm 1.8? In other word, Can I get away with using 50 mm lens for portraits if I use my camera in DX mode?
I ask this because 50 mm with crop will be 75 mm on DX
What are the pros and cons.
Thanks in advance.
Using the 50mm lens on N FX camera in DX mode will give you the field of view of a 75mm lens on an FX body, not that of an 85mm lens on an FX body. Also you will not have the same depth of field for the same f stop value us using the camera in DX crop mode. You will also be throwing away about 50% of the pixels in this mode.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If you want what an FX body & an 85mm f/1.8 can give to your portraits that is what you have to use.
You could always hire an 85mm f/1.8 for the session while you save up for the lens.
Sorry for what may be a beginner’s rather basic question. Considering only image sharpness (disregarding depth of field changes, zooming effects, image size …), using one lens like the Nikkor FX 24-85 F3.5/4.5 VR on a DX D7100, will the inferior quality of the image on the sides and corners (‘away from the center’) be mitigated ? Will I still see some vigneting ? A read a lot of using DX lenses on FX bodies, but not the opposite, which leads me to believe that the answers are obvious, anyway … Thank you !
The vignetting would occur in the opposite situation using dx lens on fx camera. Fx glass is normally made better and your dx camera will not use the very edge of the lens due to the smaller sensor. Which really helps with chromatic abberations. So using an fx lens on a Dx camera is highly recommended by me i use most of the same lenes on My D600 and D7000.
Thanks a lot, Shawn !! This is the point, then: “your dx camera will not use THE VERY EDGE of the lens due to the smaller sensor”. It all makes sense for me now.
I’m thinking about getting a Nikkor 55-300 VR DX to use on my D610 in place of my current FX Nikkor 28 -300 VR, both to save weight and get the extra focal length from the conversion. Am I correct that I should still get a decent quality image in the center of the frame if I use the auto DX crop area function in the D610?
Interesting writeup but I can’t help but wonder about the emphasis on only current production lenses. As a Nikon user going back to the original F model FTn I have a considerable amount of experience with Nikkors of many vintages. I also have a rather large array of Nikkors that were converted both forward and back to maintain compatability. One example of this is that most of my D series AF Nikkors have the ancient Rabbit Ear metering prongs mounted on the aperture rings so I could use them with my F2Sb’s.
If one is using a D600 or similar level camera an easily found, inexpensive, and high quality 35 mm f1.8 lens is available in the older D series AF Nikkors. On any camera that still retains the old screw drive focusing motor the focusing is quite responsive and those old 35 f1.8 D series lenses are distinctly compact and very good in terms of image quality. Heck, when I really want to go light I have a rather ancient 45mm f2.8 GN Nikkor with the AIS conversion kit that still functions very well on my new D750.
Point is if you are shooting Nikon FX don’t get trapped into the box of current production only lenses. NIkon provided features on these cameras that allow the use of any Nikkor lens made in the F mount that meets the standard for the AIS aperture linking mechanism. This means you can use older Nikon manual focus lenses, AF-D Nikkors, and any of the current lenses. That gives you access to a very wide array of high quality glass and most of the older manual focus lenses are now selling at near give away prices. Tip, if there aren’t two separate rows of aperture numbers on the aperture ring DO NOT attempt to mount it on a modern Nikon body. Single row aperture rings predate the AIS standard ans will fracture the aperture linking ring on a new Nikon body, so be sure to remember this particular tip.
Good answer Scooter. The newest lens i have is the AF-S 50mm f1.8 other than that my lenses are Mostly AF-D lenses like the 28-80, 35-105, 70-300, and the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D i’m not the type of person that can drop $2,000 on a lens it took my long enough to save up for a used D600 body.
I also have an old Vivitar 120-600mm AIS lens that is excellent when i can nail the manual focus
Here is my question… One of my favorite DX lenses is the Nikon 10-24mm. I recently upgraded to the D750 from the D90. If I use the same lens on both bodies (with the D750 DX crop mode on) and shoot the exact same photo at the same focal length, will I get the same image? Or will one be cropped more than another? Thanks!
Well the D90 has a smaller sensor so it will produce a cropped image. The D750 will cover the area of a 35mm camera, but how the image comes out is totally dependant on what the lens can cover. I’ve used a 10-24 on a D750 before and I think the best range O was able to cover was 11mm at 1.2 crop. I think the black circle will start to disappear at around 15.5mm if you’re shooting in FX mode. Like the article demonstrates, the corners are total joke when using DX lenses on FX bodies.
The answer to my own question is….If you shoot with a DX lens on an FX body with the crop DX feature on, you get basically the same image as do shooting the same lens on a DX body. I used the 10-24mm DX Nikon and tried both 10mm and 24mm on both bodies. The D750 auto cropped DX image was a slightly smaller resolution that the D90 image, but the difference was negligible.
Can you help me out, I seem to be getting conflicting information: If I use a DX lens (the 35mm f1.8 mentioned above for instance) on a DX body does the DX Sensor crop factor still come into play? I was thinking since it was a DX lens it was no longer an issue but the owner at the local camera store said it still applied regardless and, if I was looking for a 50mm for my Nikon D5200 I would need to purchase a 35mm lens. So confused!
The focal lenth is 35mm on an FX or DX body but the area covered by the DX sensor is smaller than that of an FX sensor by a factor of 1:1.5, so if you want to cover the area of a 50mm on a fullframe but using a DX camera instead then the focal lenth you need to get is 50/1.5=33.33333. I know how you feel, its a dumb system.
The mechanics of the crop factor and the math I’ve got down. The part that’s confusing me is if Nikon names the cropped sensor DX then comes out with lenses marked DX why would crop factor still apply (if it does)? Seems to me logic would be “Oh, this lens is marked ’50mm f1.8 DX’ so on my DX sensor camera it is an actual 50mm”. That’s what I assumed and the employee-guy at the camera store said initially too – but then the owner corrected that the sensor crop still applies and that 50mm DX lens would still have an apparent focal length of 75mm when used on my D5200.
I’m looking at a 35mm f1.8 DX and a 50mm f1.8 DX but can’t figure out which one I should get if I’m trying to get a ~50mm lens for the camera. I just don’t understand why they would label a lens with the name of the sensor if the focal length of the lens wasn’t adjusted for the sensor sharing the same name.
*throws camera*
Hi Bradley,
I understand where you are coming from. The reason they don’t change the label on a camera lens is that it is an actual (more or less) measurement of the physical focal length. No matter what camera you put a 50mm lens on it doesn’t change the fact that if you took out a ruler and measured the lens focal length you would get 50mm on the ruler (again more or less, there are exceptions but let’s not worry about those).
The reason a lens is marked DX is that it produces an image circle that should only be supported on a smaller sensor. “Should” because as this article points out there are some wonderful exceptions.
This brings us to the whole crop factor discussion. Crop factor is always defined in terms of 35mm film, so I like to think of it by using this phrase “acts like a __mm lens would on full frame”, where __ is the focal length multiplied by the crop factor. Thus a 35mm lens on a DX camera “acts like” a 52.5mm lens on full frame. This applies to any crop sensor including micro 4/3 which is 2x crop. Even compact cameras show the actual focal length on the front of the lens like 8.8mm-25.7mm even though it “acts like” a 24mm-70mm lens would on full frame.
So if you want a DX lens that gives you an angle of view like a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, buy the 35mm DX lens. You could instead buy a 35mm FX lens, but it would be bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
If you put a dx lens on an fx body, will the image cover the entire fx sensor, which is bigger than the dx sensor? Am I correct that the focal length ratio formula also works in reverse (i.e. if a 65mm fx lens effectively becomes an approximately 100mm lens on a dx body, would a 100mm dx lens therefore effectively become an approximately 65mm lens if you put it on an fx body?)?
Does this also effect apertures (i.e. if I put an f2.0 dx lens on an FX body is it still an f2.0, and vice versa gointhe other way?)?
A 100mm DX lens will remain 100mm on FX but if the glass elements are not large enough for an FX sensor, you will see a black circle around the image. If you put a 100mm FX lens on a DX body, it will still be 100mm, but the area covered by the DX sensor is smaller than that of an FX sensor, so you will only get the central portion of the image.
No need for the confusion. A 35mm DX lens is the same as the FX one but it has a smaller diameter thats only enough to cover for the DX sensor. This is done to save money and weight. If you want a 50mm area on your D5200 then you will need to be around the number 30-35mm.
But see, your reply is exactly where my confusion comes from: “it has a smaller diameter thats only enough to cover for the DX sensor” this would lead me to believe if I’m using a 50mm DX lens on a camera with a DX sensor then there’s no crop factor.
If I put a 50mm FX lens on my DX body the effective focal length is 75mm.
If I put a 50mm DX lens on an FX body the effective focal length is 33mm.
So by that logic, considering the smaller diameter glass, wouldn’t a 50mm DX lens on a DX body (D5200) but a “true” 50mm? All the pages I go to say even with the DX branded lens the crop factor still applies(as did the “guy in the know” at the camera shop) but everything in my brain says it shouldn’t.
I get that my FX 70-300mm has an apparent 450mm max field of view, but I also have a 55-200 DX which seems to me should actually be 55-200 since the lens is marked (and, presumably made for) DX sensor cameras. …but everyone is saying otherwise and saying if I want a 50mm lens (regardless of if I’m buying a DX lens) the crop factor still applies.
Yes there is a crop factor everytime you read a focal length number and apply it to a DX factor. A 35mm 1.8 DX is actually a 50mm on a DX body. A 55-200mm DX is actually 80-350 on a DX camera. To completwly erase this confusion, alwaysknow that any focal length number you read on a lens has to be factored to get the DX number, even if ther’s a DX stamped on the lens. If you go to Nikon’s websites, you will notice that they always mention the equivalent focal length somewhere along the lines. Hope this helps.
Sorry I meant 85-300.
But the Nikon webpage for the DX lenses actually do not mention the crop factor, the 35mm f1.8 DX ( http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f1.8g.html ) doesn’t make any mention of crop factor except that an FX camera will have to use “DX crop mode”… however the (non-DX) 50mm f1.8 ( http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-50mm-f%252f1.8g.html ) does specify the 75mm equivalent crop factor on a DX body.
Even the 55-200 DX doesn’t say anything about cropping…
All lenses have a focal length based on a full frame camera, FX in Nikon parlance. The focal length of the lens never alters, no matter what size of the sensor is behind it. What does change is the angle of view. As the sensor gets smaller from full frame down to crop frame the angle of view gets narrower, mimicking what you would see on a longer lens attached to a full frame camera.
To use your 35mm DX lens sample. The field of view multiplier is 1:1.5, giving the same field of view as a 52.5mm lens on an FX body.
The reason Nikon & others make DX (crop frame lenses) is because the lens only has to project an image onto a smaller area. (See image circles picture near the top of this page.) This smaller projection can be produced from a lens whose elements have a much smaller diameter, thus saving material and reducing manufacturing costs. Hopefully making DX lenses cheaper for the consumer.
There is no reason in the world why you can’t fit an FX lens to a DX body. The sensor will only see what is projected by the centre portion of the lens.
If you intend to go FX in the not too distant future, you may as well by FX lenses now, to avoid replacing all your lenses when you step up to an FX camera. If you intend to stay with DX, then the choice is yours, though image quality may be better using the FX lens, because you are only using the best quality part of the lens which is in the middle.
I hope that helps?
Great article! I have decided to get the Tokina 11-16 based on your research. Thank you for that. I have a 50mm dx 1.8. Will this work in a FF with DX crop mode off? Or will ot produce too much vigneting?
So I am finally switching over to FX from DX (D750 from D90). I will be taking a trip in a couple of weeks in which I’d like to take a longer zoom than the included 28-120mm lens would be. So, my question comes in two parts:
1. I had my eyes on the FX 70-300mm, but, according to the Nikkor Lens Simulator, it will provide the same equivalent focal length of my DX 55-200mm if I were to attach it to the D750. At 200mm with auto-crop disabled, how badly will vignetting come into play? How will image quality hold up?
2. If I do choose to buy the 70-300mm, is the AF-S VR IF-ED f4.5 version of the lens worth the extra $300-ish over the AF f4 version?
70-300mm AF-S VR IF-ED f4.5-5.6 is an often overlooked lens.
Here is a recent shot using that lens photographing a windmill over half a mile away with a D800.
Yes, it could be sharper & yes the purple fringing is noticeable if you pixel peep, but for a cheap lens it’s acceptable.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswaddell/29882579472/in/dateposted-public/
Thanks for the info and the sample image! Though, if I am to buy a 70-300mm, I am in need of some comparison between the two versions. And though I have good income, the $500 AF-S VR version is still not exactly cheap to me, especially after just purchasing the $2500 camera kit and a new $1600 laptop with it. That being said, I’d only be willing to fork out the cash for it if it is really worth it over the more basic $173 version.
When buying a lens with the reach of a 70-300 I would always go for the version with vibration reduction. It will allow you to shoot two to three stops slower. Remember that this isn’t a bright lens, especially at the long end. The lens is at it sharpest between f/8 & f/11.
Those two to three stops could be either shutter speed, aperture or ISO, or a combination of any or all of them. Without the VR option, you lose that flexibility.
Just buy the VR, you know it makes sense. If you can’t afford a new one get a good used example.
Nikon’s DX & FX compatibility is one of those concepts that are difficult to grasp, not only for the beginner amateur but professionals as well – I know several! Your article has gone a long way to simplifying the facts of this compatibility and especially the real, usability value of Nikon over every other manufacturer.
Another associated elelment to this compatibility/incompatibility “don’t go there” fear by the ill informed is that Megapixel Myth denyers’ club. I’ve recently submitted to a retailer, an image pair (original & a crop) that clearly demonstrates the functional and acceptible useability of the DX lenses (or FX), when used on a Nikon Df. I’ve cropped the original to the point that the equivalent result is only displaying the equivalent of approximately two (2) negapixels only. My point is that acceptable images can be captured by crops and this demonstrates that the ‘megapixel myth’ really is true – cropping an image does effectively reduce the number of pixels used and that clearly does not prevent you from obtaining useful images.
I can’t send the images here, as there is no facility to submit them but you don’t need mine, you can all do this test for yourselves!
Happy self-teaching.
RTS
Hi guys,
I m very glad that i found this article and i would like to ask you a question.
I got nikon d5100 with 35mm 1.8dx and tokina 11 16mm 2.8 dxII. Everything works perfectly but i m interested to switch on ff d750. Tell me which lens adapter is best for this lenses from dx to ff, mabye you can post a link where i can buy it.
Thank you in advance
Nikkor lenses DX (APS-C) and FX (full Frame) lenses are interchangeable with most Nikon bodies and don’t need adapters.
A couple of things you need to know however:
1/ Both lenses (like all others) have a projected ‘circular’ image into the mirror box & onto the plane of the sensor.
1a/ The only thing you need to know about the difference, as far as the sensor size is A/ that the DX projection is smaller in diameter – designed specifically for the smaller DX (!/2 frame (APS-C))sensor – in the like of the D200 or D5100 or the like.
2/ Nonetheless, even with the smaller projected circle of light, the DX lenses still work just fine on the FX bodies’ sensors and with the proviso that you understand that when a smaller projection circle is projected on the larger (FX) sensor, there “may be” some cut off (vignetting) in some cases but not, all cases.
However(!); this may not be a hindrance unless you need the full image you have chosen (landscape/portrait or what-have you) projected onto either sensor size.
3/ The focal length of the lenses are the same and though most people think otherwise, they are not defined as such, by the ‘projected circle of light’ that lights the sensor plane. Even some specifications by the manufacturers get this fact confused. My advice therefore would be to try it out first!
4/ Keeping in mind that the DX format has been both aimed at the amateur, as most are today: not all of them are though – the D500 being the latest example. My point here is to point out that a lot of the DX lenses have been priced (manufactured) to keep the price low, to ensure more people buy the DX configurations. Now the complications:- those DX lenses may not be inferior in optical quality! Some are mechanically less durable and less rugged and other factors come into play but, some currently manufactured DX lenses from Nikon are as well made as the FX lenses that are aimed at the full framed sensors. In the old days Nikon used (a not very secretive code), a code to identify poorer quality lenses like for the Nikon EM type of body, and even though the EM was a full frame film camera, it had made for it lenses with the designation ‘NIKON’ not Nikkor. Of course this is further complicated by the fact that both the cheaper NIKON lenses, as well as the NIKKOR lenses were interchangeable with the EM and hence the quality of the resultant images in this instance was dependent on the photographers’ competence and the type of film used. This can lead up into areas that are far too complex to go into here so to make my point in this paragraph, be conscious that all manufacturers price as much for marketing reasons as for quality of make. So when you choose to buy a Nikkor lens, know why you want to buy that particular model – hopefully you will be sensible enough to be buying that particular lens because it has characteristics you want and can afford.
The main problem we are facing here, “will the DX fit an FX camera or reverse” – well yes it will. Question yourself about what camera series you want to end up with, a DX or an FX? When you can afford to buy the FX lenses, then buy them so that you have your most important tools – the lenses (remember that they take the photos) are already in your kit. It is not as easy as that however and becomes very confusing for most because if you don’t have your gear provided for you, then almost certainly, price will matter. The options to arrive at your decision is a list too long to go into here by far but let me point out here that I use a Df and also still use a D200 with about as much satisfaction from both. I use both FX & DX lenses on both, without complaint, except for the vignetting which surprisingly is rarely a problem because I probably crop 99% of my images anyway. For example then, landscape preferences’ photographers may not find using a DX lens on an FX (even uncropped), a hindrance because if they are using the focal length they need, the cropping will often be a part of their post processing anyway. And so the complications mount.
Know your gear before you even buy it! understand it before you even buy it! Know your gear in intellectual partnership with a good knowledge of photographic techniques – a good understanding of the S the A the M the P the ISO at least. the partnership of this latter is more important than the gear, very often this is true! If you are not serious about this, then choose any old/new camera and lenses and go point and shoot ( a phone or Ipad even). Automation today is likely to result in some pretty good shots anyway, no matter the depth of your Photographic ignorance and the technology is improving all the time.
Just a couple of points to cut this comment short, all sorts of camera equipment can result in fine images if your basic technique is sound and put into practice. I have just a few images uploaded to a site called IPERNITY (look up Ron Silvester)’s photographs. The reason I point you here is to highlight my point. Amongst these few images I have used various gear from fixed zoom lens pocket cameras to the FX formats. With the DX/FX bodies involved on this site, both DX & FX lenses have been used, including old manual ‘film era’ lenses – this is the unique characteristic and advantage of using Nikon.
The last point I’d like to suggest that is relevant here, practice your technique competently and really, which camera or lens you are using won’t much matter. Yes there are advantages with the right gear for the job, but if your techniques are up to scratch, then you will understand this just as a carpenter knows to use a hammer and not a length of garden hose pipe when hammering in a nail.
Have fun and enjoy your photography.
RonTS
Thanks a lot for this article, indeed helpful. Now I can peacefully upgrade to D750 from D7100 without changing my Nikon 35mm 1.8G & Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Pro II lenses. My 3rd lens is 80-400 which is Fx so nothing to worry here. Thanks a again for this wonderful article.
Cheers!