Does Nikon have the same lens lineup split that Canon does (EF & EF-S)?

[kyzen]

I'm been considering a full frame camera for awhile now, but decided none of the current generation is for me. I do, however, want to start trying to stick with lens purchases that I can continue to use when I do finally upgrade. At the same time, I'm considering a brand switch to Nikon before I get any more invested into Canon.

My question though, is do all Nikon lenses work on their full frame cameras (D700 for example)? If not, how can you tell which lenses will work on the full frame devices, and which ones won't? With Canon I know the EF lenses will work on full frame cameras, while the EF-S lenses are limited to the APS-C cameras.

Any straight up answers, or links to information would be fantastic, thanks

 

[Munky]

The Nikon lenses that have "DX" in their name are for APS-C cameras. The ones that don't are for full-frame cameras.

 

[stevf]

Nikon has FX and DX lenses, FX are film and full frame sensor lenses and DX lenses are for APS-c sensors. however, either currently work on any camera. Of course FX and DX lenses work great on the APS-c cameras. The DX lenses currently do work on the full frame bodies but the camera will only use the center portion of the sensor. So you can mount and use them fine but at a lower resolution. Of course that could change in the future but Nikon seems to take care that all their lenses will at least mount and work to some degree

 

[kyzen]

Good to know, thanks folks

 

[jpeyton]

As mentioned, Nikon does have the split between APS-C and full frame lenses.

However, one big difference between Nikon and Canon is that Nikon lets you mount and use APS-C lenses on their full frame cameras. You can choose in the camera's menu whether you want it to automatically crop out the APS-C image circle in that situation, or leave the full frame uncropped.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You can choose in the camera's menu whether you want it to automatically crop out the APS-C image circle in that situation, or leave the full frame uncropped.

And by not letting the camera perform DX crop, you will be able to gain a bit more resolution that would allow you to crop the vignetting yourself.

 

[Deadtrees]

If you plan to go FF, just stick with FF lenses. Even if APS-C lesnses work on FF cameras, it's far from usable.
If I were you, I'd buy one APS-C walkaround zoom lens and keep all the others lenses FF.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If you plan to go FF, just stick with FF lenses. Even if APS-C lesnses work on FF cameras, it's far from usable.
If I were you, I'd buy one APS-C walkaround zoom lens and keep all the others lenses FF.

why would you say it's far from usable?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If you plan to go FF, just stick with FF lenses. Even if APS-C lesnses work on FF cameras, it's far from usable.
If I were you, I'd buy one APS-C walkaround zoom lens and keep all the others lenses FF.

why would you say it's far from usable?

A 12MP FF D700 would only be 5MP when shooting with a APS-C lens. Shooting APS-C on this FF body would only be for emergencies.

A 24MP D3x would shoot at 10.8MP for an APS-C lens, certainly usable. But I'm not sure why you would be permanently running around with a APS-C lens on a FF body unless you really want to use one of the APS-C only superzooms.

I consider 8MP the minimum to shoot with. Good combination of image quality and latitude to do any additional cropping without compromising too much. A FF sensor would have to be at least ~18MP to be able to capture 8MP with an APS-C lens.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If you plan to go FF, just stick with FF lenses. Even if APS-C lesnses work on FF cameras, it's far from usable.
If I were you, I'd buy one APS-C walkaround zoom lens and keep all the others lenses FF.

why would you say it's far from usable?

A 12MP FF D700 would only be 5MP when shooting with a APS-C lens. Shooting APS-C on this FF body would only be for emergencies.

A 24MP D3x would shoot at 10.8MP for an APS-C lens, certainly usable. But I'm not sure why you would be permanently running around with a APS-C lens on a FF body unless you really want to use one of the APS-C only superzooms.

I consider 8MP the minimum to shoot with. Good combination of image quality and latitude to do any additional cropping without compromising too much. A FF sensor would have to be at least ~18MP to be able to capture 8MP with an APS-C lens.

I still don't see how it's "far from usable" though. Take 5MP... my old rebel was still great at 6MP. Sure, it can't do EVERYTHING, but it's certainly usable.

Now, not to say go out and use crop lenses for your FF, but if you have it, it can be used to it's limits. at least until you retire it for FF glass. And to be honest, I would probably keep my 50-135 if I went FF. It's such a damn nice lens, heh.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If you plan to go FF, just stick with FF lenses. Even if APS-C lesnses work on FF cameras, it's far from usable.
If I were you, I'd buy one APS-C walkaround zoom lens and keep all the others lenses FF.

why would you say it's far from usable?

A 12MP FF D700 would only be 5MP when shooting with a APS-C lens. Shooting APS-C on this FF body would only be for emergencies.

A 24MP D3x would shoot at 10.8MP for an APS-C lens, certainly usable. But I'm not sure why you would be permanently running around with a APS-C lens on a FF body unless you really want to use one of the APS-C only superzooms.

I consider 8MP the minimum to shoot with. Good combination of image quality and latitude to do any additional cropping without compromising too much. A FF sensor would have to be at least ~18MP to be able to capture 8MP with an APS-C lens.

I still don't see how it's "far from usable" though. Take 5MP... my old rebel was still great at 6MP. Sure, it can't do EVERYTHING, but it's certainly usable.

Now, not to say go out and use crop lenses for your FF, but if you have it, it can be used to it's limits. at least until you retire it for FF glass. And to be honest, I would probably keep my 50-135 if I went FF. It's such a damn nice lens, heh.

I guess you would have to define "usability." For me, it would be unusable for commercial use. Way too much stuff could hit the fan if I used 5MP to shoot properties. It would even be unusable for personal use because my personal standards are not met at 5MP, but 8MP. But to other people "usability" is different.

In fact, in my other thread I was thinking the same exact thing. I want a D700, but then I'd have to retire my 17-55mm and 11-16mm and buy FF (and much more expensive) versions in the equivalent focal range. I thought about just sticking with the 11-16mm, but it doesn't sit well with me that I'd only be shooting 5MP for business use. What if a client wanted me to crop in on something? What if they wanted to print a huge brochure? The files wouldn't be able to keep up, and I'd have a ding on my reputation and possible loss of future revenue from that realtor and perhaps even his entire office.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If you plan to go FF, just stick with FF lenses. Even if APS-C lesnses work on FF cameras, it's far from usable.
If I were you, I'd buy one APS-C walkaround zoom lens and keep all the others lenses FF.

why would you say it's far from usable?

A 12MP FF D700 would only be 5MP when shooting with a APS-C lens. Shooting APS-C on this FF body would only be for emergencies.

A 24MP D3x would shoot at 10.8MP for an APS-C lens, certainly usable. But I'm not sure why you would be permanently running around with a APS-C lens on a FF body unless you really want to use one of the APS-C only superzooms.

I consider 8MP the minimum to shoot with. Good combination of image quality and latitude to do any additional cropping without compromising too much. A FF sensor would have to be at least ~18MP to be able to capture 8MP with an APS-C lens.

I still don't see how it's "far from usable" though. Take 5MP... my old rebel was still great at 6MP. Sure, it can't do EVERYTHING, but it's certainly usable.

Now, not to say go out and use crop lenses for your FF, but if you have it, it can be used to it's limits. at least until you retire it for FF glass. And to be honest, I would probably keep my 50-135 if I went FF. It's such a damn nice lens, heh.

I guess you would have to define "usability." For me, it would be unusable for commercial use. Way too much stuff could hit the fan if I used 5MP to shoot properties. It would even be unusable for personal use because my personal standards are not met at 5MP, but 8MP. But to other people "usability" is different.

In fact, in my other thread I was thinking the same exact thing. I want a D700, but then I'd have to retire my 17-55mm and 11-16mm and buy FF (and much more expensive) versions in the equivalent focal range. I thought about just sticking with the 11-16mm, but it doesn't sit well with me that I'd only be shooting 5MP for business use. What if a client wanted me to crop in on something? What if they wanted to print a huge brochure? The files wouldn't be able to keep up, and I'd have a ding on my reputation and possible loss of future revenue from that realtor and perhaps even his entire office.

that's entirely my point, though. not everyone is doing blow up to 100x size work (ok, if they were, shouldn't be using dslr's, heh).

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If you plan to go FF, just stick with FF lenses. Even if APS-C lesnses work on FF cameras, it's far from usable.
If I were you, I'd buy one APS-C walkaround zoom lens and keep all the others lenses FF.

why would you say it's far from usable?

A 12MP FF D700 would only be 5MP when shooting with a APS-C lens. Shooting APS-C on this FF body would only be for emergencies.

A 24MP D3x would shoot at 10.8MP for an APS-C lens, certainly usable. But I'm not sure why you would be permanently running around with a APS-C lens on a FF body unless you really want to use one of the APS-C only superzooms.

I consider 8MP the minimum to shoot with. Good combination of image quality and latitude to do any additional cropping without compromising too much. A FF sensor would have to be at least ~18MP to be able to capture 8MP with an APS-C lens.

I still don't see how it's "far from usable" though. Take 5MP... my old rebel was still great at 6MP. Sure, it can't do EVERYTHING, but it's certainly usable.

Now, not to say go out and use crop lenses for your FF, but if you have it, it can be used to it's limits. at least until you retire it for FF glass. And to be honest, I would probably keep my 50-135 if I went FF. It's such a damn nice lens, heh.

I guess you would have to define "usability." For me, it would be unusable for commercial use. Way too much stuff could hit the fan if I used 5MP to shoot properties. It would even be unusable for personal use because my personal standards are not met at 5MP, but 8MP. But to other people "usability" is different.

In fact, in my other thread I was thinking the same exact thing. I want a D700, but then I'd have to retire my 17-55mm and 11-16mm and buy FF (and much more expensive) versions in the equivalent focal range. I thought about just sticking with the 11-16mm, but it doesn't sit well with me that I'd only be shooting 5MP for business use. What if a client wanted me to crop in on something? What if they wanted to print a huge brochure? The files wouldn't be able to keep up, and I'd have a ding on my reputation and possible loss of future revenue from that realtor and perhaps even his entire office.

that's entirely my point, though. not everyone is doing blow up to 100x size work (ok, if they were, shouldn't be using dslr's, heh).

Sure, not everyone will have these requirements, but think of the demographic this camera's geared towards. These are working professionals. These are no longer just hobbyists that are "ok" with shooting at 5MP for their personal photo albums. If they were, it would be wiser for them to go with a 6MP D40 for a few hundred bucks.

And not 100x, even just an 8x10. That's the upper limit for 5MP.

I'm just not sure why you would take a $2000 camera, pop on a $500 APS-C lens, and shoot a 5MP picture with it unless it's an emergency. Such as your full frame lens is destroyed and you're in the middle of a job.

 

[Deadtrees]

About APC-S lens on FF camera usability, on top of everything fuzybabybunny said, I just don't see the point of using APC-S lens of FF camera.
It feels quite ackward on the viewfinder and you lose great portion of FF sensor's ability. It's like someone buying $600 GPU with $100 celeron CPU. Sure it may work fine for that person's purpose but it's just very unbalanced.
To me, it's about the balance so that one aspect of your gears don't downsize the other.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
About APC-S lens on FF camera usability, on top of everything fuzybabybunny said, I just don't see the point of using APC-S lens of FF camera.
It feels quite ackward on the viewfinder and you lose great portion of FF sensor's ability. It's like someone buying $600 GPU with $100 celeron CPU. Sure it may work fine for that person's purpose but it's just very unbalanced.
To me, it's about the balance so that one aspect of your gears don't downsize the other.

Wouldn't an APS-C lens on a FF body actually make AF easier?

The FF Nikon cameras use the same 51-point AF sensor placement as the APS-C cameras. So if you use a APS-C lens on a FF body, all 51 points will still be used. In fact, it would cover the area better. Sure, the FF body has 51 AF points, but they're all clustered around the center, which is one of the reasons that make me frustrated with Nikon.

 

[randomlinh]

The point is simply you can do it. And with sensors increasing in megapixels, that whole aspect of it gets a bit moot. It makes it easier to buy a good aps-c lens if it exists, and migrate it over, and then maybe ditch it when you're good to go. It's simply an option there for those that want to take it.

As for wanting to use an APC-S lens... well, I dunno what nikon has, but canon has a few spectacular ones. Again, FF would change the dynamics, and it might not work for you, but could be perfectly fine for someone else. Why get rid of it unless there's a specific reason other than "oh, I need a FF lens," which I see too often (the concept, not necessarily specific to lenses).

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
About APC-S lens on FF camera usability, on top of everything fuzybabybunny said, I just don't see the point of using APC-S lens of FF camera.
It feels quite ackward on the viewfinder and you lose great portion of FF sensor's ability. It's like someone buying $600 GPU with $100 celeron CPU. Sure it may work fine for that person's purpose but it's just very unbalanced.
To me, it's about the balance so that one aspect of your gears don't downsize the other.

Wouldn't an APS-C lens on a FF body actually make AF easier?

The FF Nikon cameras use the same 51-point AF sensor placement as the APS-C cameras. So if you use a APS-C lens on a FF body, all 51 points will still be used. In fact, it would cover the area better. Sure, the FF body has 51 AF points, but they're all clustered around the center, which is one of the reasons that make me frustrated with Nikon.

About that, I have no clue. What I know is that it's very difficult to spread AF points all over the frame due to how AF sensor mechanism works. To me, AF points on D3 isn't narrow at all considering how most, if not all, FF cameras are that way.

If AF points being clustered around center affects you, how about using contrast detect AF? It's slow but as you're doing real estate work, I guess the speed doesn't matter much?

Originally posted by: randomlinh
The point is simply you can do it. And with sensors increasing in megapixels, that whole aspect of it gets a bit moot. It makes it easier to buy a good aps-c lens if it exists, and migrate it over, and then maybe ditch it when you're good to go. It's simply an option there for those that want to take it.

As for wanting to use an APC-S lens... well, I dunno what nikon has, but canon has a few spectacular ones. Again, FF would change the dynamics, and it might not work for you, but could be perfectly fine for someone else. Why get rid of it unless there's a specific reason other than "oh, I need a FF lens," which I see too often (the concept, not necessarily specific to lenses).

Yes, it's possible and you can do it. I'm not denying that.
I've tried mounting my girlfriend's 17-50mm on my FF body and while it was fun for that moment, I just couldn't take it. For emergency situations, I see that there's a need but I think that's where it stops.
How many people have you seen who uses APC-S lenses for their FF cameras? I haven't seen any and I think there's a reason. In the first place, why buy a FF camera if you're going to mount APC-S lenses on it? Why limit camera's potential? Would you keep a lens like Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for FF camera? Why not just go for a FF 50mm lens? Why spend big $ for the FF camera when your lens produces worse IQ than it is used on APC-S camera?

Oh well...That's just my opnion and I know you're free to do whatever you want to do. Having said that, have you ever acutally worked with APC-S lenses on FF cameras?

Read what others say and check out the samples:
(Keep it mind that the Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 DX lens used in that sample image is one of the best, if not the very best, APC-S lenses regardless of any brands'.)

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qybj
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QgSE
http://images.google.com/imgre...Doff%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Yes, it's possible and you can do it. I'm not denying that.
I've tried mounting my girlfriend's 17-50mm on my FF body and while it was fun for that moment, I just couldn't take it. For emergency situations, I see that there's a need but I think that's where it stops.
How many people have you seen who uses APC-S lenses for their FF cameras? I haven't seen any and I think there's a reason. In the first place, why buy a FF camera if you're going to mount APC-S lenses on it? Why limit camera's potential? Would you keep a lens like Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for FF camera? Why not just go for a FF 50mm lens? Why spend big $ for the FF camera when your lens produces worse IQ than it is used on APC-S camera?

I didn't say it was popular, but I have seen it before. And I'm not saying buy a FF and then buy an APC-S lens, it's the other way around. People mostly have the APC-S camera first, then somewhere along the line feel they need to splurge to the FF. I just think "far from usable" is too extreme of a blanket statement.

And yes, I would probably keep my sigma for a while. Doesn't mean I'd keep it forever, but it's usable. Tho, I doubt I'll go FF until they can stick it in the body/weight of a K7 =)

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Yes, it's possible and you can do it. I'm not denying that.
I've tried mounting my girlfriend's 17-50mm on my FF body and while it was fun for that moment, I just couldn't take it. For emergency situations, I see that there's a need but I think that's where it stops.
How many people have you seen who uses APC-S lenses for their FF cameras? I haven't seen any and I think there's a reason. In the first place, why buy a FF camera if you're going to mount APC-S lenses on it? Why limit camera's potential? Would you keep a lens like Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for FF camera? Why not just go for a FF 50mm lens? Why spend big $ for the FF camera when your lens produces worse IQ than it is used on APC-S camera?

I didn't say it was popular, but I have seen it before. And I'm not saying buy a FF and then buy an APC-S lens, it's the other way around. People mostly have the APC-S camera first, then somewhere along the line feel they need to splurge to the FF. I just think "far from usable" is too extreme of a blanket statement.

And yes, I would probably keep my sigma for a while. Doesn't mean I'd keep it forever, but it's usable. Tho, I doubt I'll go FF until they can stick it in the body/weight of a K7 =)

A more important point is that this situation illustrates differences in design philosophy between manufacturers. It goes back to that Fake Chuck Westfall post talking about viewfinder gridlines and eyepiece covers.

Nikon has always built more feature rich cameras than Canon, but there was a time (before the summer '07 launch of the D3) that Canon held a significant advantage in sensor technology. That isn't the case anymore.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Nikon has always built more feature rich cameras than Canon, but there was a time (before the summer '07 launch of the D3) that Canon held a significant advantage in sensor technology. That isn't the case anymore.

Yeah, I'm glad they closed the gap, canon has been sitting on their asses. Still not likely to switch, the cost just doesn't benefit it for me (similar to FBB's pondering of switching to FF).