DX Lens Question

Started Feb 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: There's more going on than coverage

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Comparing the 35mm f/1.8 with the 35mm f/1.4 is comparing a $200 lens with a $1700 lens. And, by golly, the $1700 lens is better. But the $200 lens is no slouch.

I'm more impressed by Nikon's being able to engineer so much quality into a low-cost, mass-produced product like the 35mm f/1.8 than I am by their being able to produce a high-quality lens for a lot of money.

Isn't that the point though? They can produce a high quality lens for use on DX that is small and cheap. The same lens on FX (though the f1.4 is of course faster) will need to be bigger and more expensive.

What I was questioning was the idea that a smaller lens has fewer abberations to correct. The abberations that might appear on the edge of the frame on FX will not appear on a DX sensor.

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow