Can a 17-55/2.8 be used on an FX body? Also what are the reasons why Nikon says it will only work on DX cameras?
With the 10.5/2.8 FE this is the result on a FX camera - so I can see why its a DX only lens
My question is why wouldn't the 17-55 work? The 17-35 has the same focal length at the wide-end, does the rear element extend into the mirror or something
The image projected by the lens won't cover the FX sensor... Just like the 10.5/2.8 isn't covering the whole sensor. Hence Nikon saying it doesn't work (unless you turn on DX crop mode)
According to Bjorn Rorslett, it will cover the 35mm/FX format from 35~55mm (see here), although I would not expect great corner performance. Below 35mm you will get noticeable corner vignetting.
the fish eye shot happens when you override dx mode so its not enabled when a dx lens is attached.. If you allow dx mode to run the fish comes out fine. Too cheap and unmotivated to find a proper fx fish, I'll run my 10.5 in dx mode and not emo rage over it since so rarely used. Should part with it but has been a man I am glad I have this lens a few times.
17-55 like most dx glass will at the minimum vignette medium to wild closer to wide open. If you vignette most of the time...you at least save yourself a PP step. But I am reaching for a good point with this tbh lol.
Recent thread about this. OP of that thread like his resullts away from 2.8 and far away from 17mm. this shooting fx mode. In dx mode the 17-55 will be fine, but why buy fx if shooting dx mode for most of the time.
The 17-55 was designed for DX while the 17-35 was designed for FX. The 17-55 will work on FX but you will get strong vignetting and corner clipping at shorter focal lengths unless you are using the FX camera in DX crop mode.
But, if you take a hacksaw to the lens hood on the 10.5 Bjorn Rorslett (www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html) say you end up with a 220 degree field fisheye on FX
