p.1 #1 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
If one is starting from scratch and planning to use both crop- and full-frame bodies, are FX lenses always the way to go? From what I see so far, I think so.
For instance, the Nikon Z 26mm f/2.8 (FX) looks like an ideal traveling companion on a DX body. (Canon implied a similar idea by releasing the Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 STM full-frame lens simultaneously with the EOS R100.)
However, I haven't looked at third-party DX lenses for Nikon Z-mount. Are any of them so good, or so small and light, that they are worth sharing with a full-frame body? I'd like to know about any hidden gems.
p.1 #2 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
The Viltrox air lenses are great, and Nikon’s DX zooms are slow (outside of the 16-50/2.8) but generally quite good overall, but I can’t say I’d use any of them on a FF body. The big draw is that with my Z50II or Zfc, I have a complete UWA to medium telephoto kit that fits in a tiny bag. Using them on a larger body defeats a lot of the point.
p.1 #3 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
I see what you mean. Some lenses like Plena are probably worth the heft. Other times, maybe it's worth losing pixels to avoid carrying a monster.
If great character or outstanding optical qualities can be had with a smaller lens, that's what I'm interested in. Other times, one can use an FX lens to get what the body is capable of.
Jman13 wrote:
Using them on a larger body defeats a lot of the point.
p.1 #4 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
I love my F-mount 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0. It’s pretty chunky with an FTZ but much lighter than the 24-120mm Z lens, which I also own. Each lens stays attached to a Z50ii and a Zf, respectively.
p.1 #5 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
I got a Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 for about $375 and a 56mm f/1.4 for about $500 at B&H. I like them both on my Z50II and are really light and seem to be well built. I can use them on my Z7II at slightly smaller sensor size if I want in body VR.
Nov 18, 2025 at 01:12 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #6 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
I've used the Canon 55-250 tons, the nikon looks very similar. Sub 1 lb 100-400 equivalent, basically
p.1 #8 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
If one is starting from scratch and planning to use both crop- and full-frame bodies, are FX lenses always the way to go? From what I see so far, I think so.
For instance, the Nikon Z 26mm f/2.8 (FX) looks like an ideal traveling companion on a DX body. (Canon implied a similar idea by releasing the Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 STM full-frame lens simultaneously with the EOS R100.)
However, I haven't looked at third-party DX lenses for Nikon Z-mount. Are any of them so good, or so small and light, that they are worth sharing with a full-frame body? I'd like to know about any hidden gems....Show more →
Not really, unless you also have a DX body. Nikon only has 45MP on FX so you are cropping down to less than 20MP.
p.1 #9 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
As stated, I am interested in using both FX and DX bodies. EB-1 wrote:
Not really, unless you also have a DX body. Nikon only has 45MP on FX so you are cropping down to less than 20MP
p.1 #11 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
The 16-50 kit lens is an adequate performer, inexpensive enough to have around for a "just in case" lens. For example, If I'm heading out with the 100-400 + tc on FX for the day, and don't expect needing other focal lengths, the 16-50 is easy to toss in "just in case".
For the very few occasions where you want your Nikon FX Z kit to be as small as possible, but you don't want to buy a separate body, you can slap on the 16-50 as well.
p.1 #13 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
EB-1 wrote:
Not really, unless you also have a DX body. Nikon only has 45MP on FX so you are cropping down to less than 20MP.
EBH
45MP in DX is 19.5MP vs the ~20.5MP or so of all the Nikon Z DX bodies, which is going to be indistinguishable in final results. Plus you get IBIS on the 45MP bodies, a much better EVF and a bigger battery
There's a good argument that the best cheap DX body in Z mount is the cheapest Z7 you can find.
p.1 #14 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
zachdog wrote:
I love my F-mount 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0. It’s pretty chunky with an FTZ but much lighter than the 24-120mm Z lens, which I also own. Each lens stays attached to a Z50ii and a Zf, respectively.
There's only 18g in difference between the 16-80E (479g) on FTZII (133g) (612g combined) and the 24-120 S (630g)
p.1 #15 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
Jepser wrote:
The main reason I kept my Zfc is the very good Voigtländer Macro APO Utlron D35mm & Nokton D23mm. Two excellent lenses.
I was completely unaware they make DX lenses for Z-mount -- super interesting. But my first reaction is that I'm surprised people buy them. If going to all the trouble, why not just invest in FX lenses? Are the DX versions significantly lighter or less expensive?
p.1 #16 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
I was completely unaware they make DX lenses for Z-mount -- super interesting. But my first reaction is that I'm surprised people buy them. If going to all the trouble, why not just invest in FX lenses? Are the DX versions significantly lighter or less expensive?
I got the DX-lenses for my Zfc, before the Zf was released. They are a bit cheaper. Now I use my Zf withy Voigtländer FF lenses 95% of the digital-photo-time, I hope they will release a Zfc 2 with nicer viewfinder and IBIS.
p.1 #17 · Z-mount glass: Are any DX lenses so good that they are worth using on FX bodies?
mawz wrote:
There's only 18g in difference between the 16-80E (479g) on FTZII (133g) (612g combined) and the 24-120 S (630g)
Indeed, that is true. The 16-80mm is also a bit front-heavy on the Z50ii with the FTZ. Yet it still feels more compact than the 24-120mm Z lens. I often pack it alongside the tiny 16-50mm kit lens.
I look forward to checking out the new 16-50mm f/2.8 DX Z lens from Nikon. I'd miss the 50-80mm range but that's not a deal-breaker. It might be another good option for using on a Z7 or Z8 body to save space, although the new lens is pricey.
