Nikon 35 mm F/1.8 DX vs 35 mm F/2.0 lens
I am a novice in DSLR world and currently I have Nikon D3100 with 18-55 kit lens.
I am willing to buy a 2nd lens and aiming for Nikon 35 mm AF-S DX F/1.8G lens.
However, I found that Nikon 35 mm F/2D is a more expensive lens.
I thought lens price rises as max aperture rises. Then why a F/1.8 lens is cheaper than F/2 lens? Is it because 1.8 DX is suitable for APS-C cameras where as F/2 is fine for FX cameras as well?
Also, when I read the reviews of 35 mm F/1.8 DX, I get mixed reviews. Majority of people praise it highly but some others said that its low light photos are not sharp (i.e. at F/1.8).
Is it true?
I want to buy a 35 mm prime lens so that I can shot good low light photos at 1.8 or 2.0 aperture.
- Fujifilm X-T223.6%
- Nikon D50025.4%
- Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E8.2%
- Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm F47.5%
- Panasonic Lumix DMC-G857.2%
- Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art6.7%
- Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art5.1%
- Sony a63006.4%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III3.7%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V6.3%
|winterblues by richmot|
from Best Landscape 2016
|Cold morning by Kaappo|
from A Winter Wonderland
|The Rock. by SpartanWarrior|
from Sea colors