Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

deednets wrote:

Toby43 wrote:

There’s nothing magic about the 1.4 you wouldn’t get with the cheapest Nikon 50mm. If you want to shoot wide open all the time I wouldn’t bother too much with an APSC sensor. Narrow depth of field is one of the sacrifices you make using lighter camera gear.

So idiots only here on this forum?? The cheapest Nikon is the 50/1.8 plastic-fantastic AF-D.

Here in New Zeaaland you can get one of those brand new with warranty for US$ 120.00 including original box!

Any examples you would care to share taken with this Nikon lens?

You might be correct of course, no rounded blades, 2002 design, but a standard lens and therefore an easy enough achievement to play with the best and beat them regarding general rendering, bokeh, sharpness (I don't doubt this lens can be sharp, but that's not everything right??) etc.

Let's just assume you weren't just talking through a hole in your head, would you care to share some example shots to put some beef to your argument here?

Please??

Not to defend the poster your referring to but that those older cheap nikon are pretty decent glass encapsulated in ever decreasing build quality.. I think the newest is a new formula but the previous ones are an inexpensive way to get some sharp glass not peanuts.... yeah yeah more aperture brings and bokeh another story perhaps...

the amusement in this whole thread is people keep posting pictures illustrating nothing. Even the reviewers comparing  the two lenses at their respective wide open apertures as opposed to both at f2 for instance.