<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DX Lenses Still Work at Full Resolution on FX Cameras</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/2008/10/19/dx-lenses-still-work-at-full-resolution-on-fx-cameras/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/2008/10/19/dx-lenses-still-work-at-full-resolution-on-fx-cameras/</link>
	<description>Photography, travel, games</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:05:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Larry Gregory</title>
		<link>http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/2008/10/19/dx-lenses-still-work-at-full-resolution-on-fx-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-979</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/?p=238#comment-979</guid>
		<description>Why don&#039;t lens mfg. who create these DX lens for use on DX cameras, indicate their
actual frame of view.  A Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 DX lens, made soley for a DX camera
has a actual field of view at 25 to 83...So why don&#039;t they just call it a 25 to 83 mm
lens,,,And be done with it..Nobody with a full frame camera is going to buy DX glass..
So why don&#039;t all these lens makers come clean, so we don&#039;t have to do the math..
1.5 indeed!!!  I am probably missing something here, but dammed if I know what...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why don&#8217;t lens mfg. who create these DX lens for use on DX cameras, indicate their<br />
actual frame of view.  A Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 DX lens, made soley for a DX camera<br />
has a actual field of view at 25 to 83&#8230;So why don&#8217;t they just call it a 25 to 83 mm<br />
lens,,,And be done with it..Nobody with a full frame camera is going to buy DX glass..<br />
So why don&#8217;t all these lens makers come clean, so we don&#8217;t have to do the math..<br />
1.5 indeed!!!  I am probably missing something here, but dammed if I know what&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Gregory</title>
		<link>http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/2008/10/19/dx-lenses-still-work-at-full-resolution-on-fx-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-978</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/?p=238#comment-978</guid>
		<description>Amazingly I was going to sell my Tokina 12-24 DX lens as I just bouhgt a Nikon D700..
I tried the 12-24 today, and got full resolution...Circular vignetting at 12mm, no vignetting
at 18 to 24...Fantastic..Rarely use the 12 to 18 anyway... Thanks for the great info...I haven&#039;t tried my Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 DX yet..Blogger indicates that won&#039;t work as well..
Lots of DX lens as I own D100,200, 300 and now 700...Will continue to experiment with them al...see what goes on...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amazingly I was going to sell my Tokina 12-24 DX lens as I just bouhgt a Nikon D700..<br />
I tried the 12-24 today, and got full resolution&#8230;Circular vignetting at 12mm, no vignetting<br />
at 18 to 24&#8230;Fantastic..Rarely use the 12 to 18 anyway&#8230; Thanks for the great info&#8230;I haven&#8217;t tried my Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 DX yet..Blogger indicates that won&#8217;t work as well..<br />
Lots of DX lens as I own D100,200, 300 and now 700&#8230;Will continue to experiment with them al&#8230;see what goes on&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noah A</title>
		<link>http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/2008/10/19/dx-lenses-still-work-at-full-resolution-on-fx-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-914</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/?p=238#comment-914</guid>
		<description>Thanks for posting this!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for posting this!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/2008/10/19/dx-lenses-still-work-at-full-resolution-on-fx-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-468</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/?p=238#comment-468</guid>
		<description>It will, but you may have vignetting or have to use DX mode.  I haven&#039;t tested that lens on the D700.  I now use the Tamron 28-300 full frame lens as a replacement.  However, I think its pretty soft at larger apertures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It will, but you may have vignetting or have to use DX mode.  I haven&#8217;t tested that lens on the D700.  I now use the Tamron 28-300 full frame lens as a replacement.  However, I think its pretty soft at larger apertures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dawn @ My Home Sweet Home</title>
		<link>http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/2008/10/19/dx-lenses-still-work-at-full-resolution-on-fx-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-467</link>
		<dc:creator>Dawn @ My Home Sweet Home</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:08:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonvandalen.com/newblog/?p=238#comment-467</guid>
		<description>I have a Nikon D80 now, but am considering upgrading to a D300 or D700. I have an 18-200mm VR DX lens. Would it work with the D700?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a Nikon D80 now, but am considering upgrading to a D300 or D700. I have an 18-200mm VR DX lens. Would it work with the D700?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
