Upload & Sell: Off
But I don't want to stop down my lens. From the same distance of about 8 feet (for instance), I prefer using the D300 with the 85mm f1.8 than I do the D700 with the 85mm f1.8.
it is of course fully your right to not wanting stopping the lens, but with FX, you just have flexibility. You can opt to stop down lens to get even better image quality and have DOF same like on DX wide open, or you can keep lens open and get more shallow DOF then you can ever get on DX.
That is also why pros are able to pay more for lenses which have similar rendering quality stopped down or not (as 85f1.4) in compare to uglier bokeh of 85 1.8 - you lose no advantage, but gain flexibility.
Then, especially if you bought expensive glass, it is a must to have FX body. Because buying 24G for 2000Eur makes no sense when in the end you gain only same what 350Eur 35f2 would give you on FX. Then it is cheaper to buy D700 and 35f2 then D7000 and 24G. So, with FX, you can ALWAYS reproduce what DX does (except reach), but with DX you can never go where FX goes. Especially when the promise of cheap and small lenses for DX never really materialized - pro DX glass costs north 1k Eur anyway and no f2 zooms giving you what f2.8 on FX is were introduced.
What i am not sure about and cannot sadly verify is, if dedicated DX lenses are calibrated same as FX lenses or as DX equivalents. So if 17-55f2.8G is in fact same bright (albeit cropped) as f2 would be on FX?
Maybe somebody with DX glass can confirm /test it?
Edited on Sep 23, 2010 at 04:34 AM · View previous versions