35mm f/1.8G for DX

<p>So this lens was manufactured to work with crop sensor cameras. I use the D7000 and I like the lens a lot. The question is how does that 35mm focal length compare to a regular 35mm lens on the D7000. <br>

The reason I ask is because I recently purchased a Fuji XT1 with the kit lens 18-135 and at 35mm it has a different view than the Nikon 35mm DX lens on my D7000. The Fuji is also a crop sensor body. The Fuji at 35mm has a little wider view than my Nikon 35mm DX.</p>

There are two different Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S lenses, one DX and one FX. The DX version has a smaller image circle,

but the focal length is the same 35mm.

 

You need to keep in mind that 35mm on a zoom is not necessarily accurate, and sensor size difference can affect image coverage. E.g. Canon's APS-C sensors are a bit smaller than Nikon's. You need to check sensor size on that Fuji camera.

 

Another issue to keep in mind is focus breathing. Focal length is measured at infinity. If you focus to 2, 3 meters, a zoom may have a much shorter effective focal length. I would compare the two again at infinity.

Focal lengths as mentioned by manufacturers and printed on lenses are nominal, rounded to traditional/more usual values. True focal lengths differ, not only from those nominal ones, but also from one design '35 mm' lens to another design '35 mm' lens. And that difference can be considerable, quite visible. A difference of up to 10% is not uncommon (and mind you: that doesn't mean there is a manufacturing tolerance that big, and that the manufacturers are quite sloppy. But just that a 31.8 mm lens is sold as a nominal '35 mm' lens, just as a 37,4 mm lens, simply because we like familiar things such as a '35 mm' designation.)<br>The '24 mm', for instance, of the 24-70 mm Nikon zoomlens is distinctly less wide than the '24 mm' of the 24-120 mm Nikon zoomlens.<br><br>Then there is the thing with the 35 mm mark being put somewhere on the focal length range on that lens, and it can well be that the point chosen is not chosen very precisely.<br><br>P.S.<br>The sensors in these cameras are exactly the same size.

<p>Kyle you need to compare the angle of view of lenses at infinity - or at least at a very long distance. The reason being that lenses change effective focal length as they focus closer.</p>

<p>The 35mm f/1.8 DX Nikkor has rear focusing, which makes the lens focal length <em>increase</em> slightly as focus is pulled closer. It actually becomes about 40mm EFL at closest focus. Most zooms OTOH, have internal focussing and shrink considerably in focal length as they're close focussed. So if you did the comparison at anything less than 10 to 20 foot distance, then it's little wonder the coverage wasn't the same.</p>

<p>Viewfinder coverage may also vary by a few percent between cameras.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, I'm trying to decide which portrait prime to buy first for the Fuji and I was comparing with what I had for my D7000. I will ultimately get several lenses but there is always the first one to decide on :). I was also thinking about upgrading my D7000 body to accommodate the portrait sessions I'm getting into. Currently for the D7000 I have the 35 DX, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 the old version (nice lens) and a couple of others that I don't consider portrait lenses. I'm really liking the Fuji and I've thought about selling off the Nikon stuff, but I kinda like having a back up even though its a different brand.</p>

<p>If the Fuji's current zoom covers the lengths of potential primes, I would suggest you just live with it for a while, and check what focal lengths you find yourself choosing most often. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I'm trying to decide which portrait prime to buy first for the Fuji </p>

</blockquote>

<p>the 56/1.2 is the obvious choice. the 60/2.4 is not bad, however. none of Fuji's other primes are really "portrait lenses," but they are good lenses. cant go wrong with the 23 or the 35 f/1.4's.</p>

<p>I agree Eric, and the 56 f/1.2 is hight on the want list, my consideration is that some if not most of my portrait sessions involves families. One coming up with 5 members. Worse case scenario would be to use the lesser D7000 or use the Fuji with the 18-135. Thanks again everyone for the input.</p>

 

<p>The D7000 and the 85mm 1.8 is all you need for outstanding portraits.</p>

<p>Since you got an XT1, why not consider the Fuji 35mm f/1.4R? Looks <a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/1930895@N22/pool/">terrific</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>my consideration is that some if not most of my portrait sessions involves families. One coming up with 5 members. Worse case scenario would be to use the lesser D7000 or use the Fuji with the 18-135. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>when i do portraits, i shoot with a 35/1.4 (environmental) and a 85/1.4 (head and shoulders). ive also shot portraits with the Fuji 60/2.4. for group shots, 35mm can work, but i like to be wider, like 24mm. i'm not sure i would plunk down the cash for the Fuji 16/1.4, or the 23/1.4, before the 56/1.2, but if you're stopping down anyway to get everyone in focus, no reason why you couldn't use the 18-135. the 53mm of the 35 DX Nikon would be a little tight for group shots, IMO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> why not consider the Fuji 35mm f/1.4R?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i concur it's a fantastic lens, especially for low-light and shallow DoF, but it would essentially duplicate the D7k+35/1.8 combo, with slightly better bokeh and an aperture ring. Makes sense if you're trying to build an all-Fuji lineup, less so if you want to cover specific focal lengths across the prime spectrum without overlap. also, the same thing goes as with the Nikon 35, it's a little tight for group shots. in my experience, i would probably use the Fuji 35 more if the 18-55 and 14/2.8 weren't so good -- i end up using it just for when a sub-2.8 aperture is needed. That said, it's a versatile option if you can only bring one lens.<br>

<br>

Even though this is the Nikon forum, i think something needs to be said here about Fuji's commitment to APS-C, which this thread illustrates. The Fuji X lens lineup is fully fleshed out in the prime department, with 14/16/18/20/23/27/35/56/60 available, and a 90/2 on the way. Nikon does not make DX versions of 1.4 lenses, doesn't offer affordable 24 and 35mm equivalent options, and while the 58/1.4 would have been a perfect match for DX bodies for portraiture, at $1700 it's cost-prohibitive. That is to say, it's easy to get excited about adding Fuji primes, but the same can't be said about Nikon, which lost its mojo when it forgot to update the d300. Is it any wonder, then, we're now seeing Fuji leakers spill over onto the Nikon forum? Nikon's just announced 16-80/4 might have reassured the DX faithful had it been released in 2009, although one assumes a body will be attached to it soon, if rumor sites are correct. But im not sure even a 24mp, 4k video-enabled, 10fps D500 will be enough to restore Nikon's momentum at this point.</p>

<p>Eric, I think Fuji's APS-C system is great. Also, I would LOVE to see Nikon make a bunch of new & great DX lenses. Maybe they will. As you noted, they made the 16-80. However, I believe it makes most sense for Nikon to compete in the FX format. A lot of the great FX lenses work well on DX anyway, so it is not necessarily an either/or proposition. When we look at dedicated APS-C gear (hard corps enthusiast level), you have two great non-Nikon systems: Fuji and M43. Tons of great native primes for those systems. As a matter of pride, Nikon could still have something to prove in APS-C. Otherwise, why compete for that space when your mount is designed for FX? Seems to me like the challenges may be greater than the potential rewards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>which lost its mojo when it forgot to update the d300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, Nikon didn't forget to update the D300. Nikon did that on purpose since they have had an 35mm-film/FX system since 1959, it makes far more sense for them to concentrate their higher-end to the FX format. On various forums, people have been complaining about the lack of a successor to the D300 since 2010/2011; there is absolutely no way Nikon would miss it.</p>

<p>Unlike Nikon, Canon finally introduced the 7D Mark II (on 14th September 2014), a full 5+ years after the 7D. But unlike all sorts of predictions that the 7D Mark II would fly off the shelves, Canon had to discount it pretty quickly, first by $100. Currently the 7D Mark II is having a $300 discount at $1500: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-REG/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html<br /> In other words, the 7D Mark II cannot at all hold the $1800 price point previous for the 7D and D300/D300S, well short of one year since its introduction. If Nikon had introduced some "D400" as a successor to the D300/D300S, they could have easily lost money.</p>

<p>Fuji, on the other hand, is starting from scratch. Fuji has no FX offering at all. APS-C is all Fuji has nowadays for cameras with interchangeable lenses. Therefore, that is the only format Fuji has focused on. If you want a somewhat complete APS-C system, Fuji seems to be a good choice. However, APS-C will always lag behind FX in terms of high-ISO results. Once you get into the Fuji mirrorless system, you have pretty much locked yourself out of FX (unless you are willing to deal with the trouble of having multiple incompatible systems).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I believe it makes most sense for Nikon to compete in the FX format. A lot of the great FX lenses work well on DX anyway, so it is not necessarily an either/or proposition. When we look at dedicated APS-C gear (hard corps enthusiast level), you have two great non-Nikon systems: Fuji and M43. Tons of great native primes for those systems. As a matter of pride, Nikon could still have something to prove in APS-C. Otherwise, why compete for that space when your mount is designed for FX?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>because Nikon has been competing in the DX space ever since the D1, and DX still sells more than FX. if you look at price points, most of the sales of bodies come in the $500-$800 range, a segment which now includes high-end compacts and mirrorless bodies. Why would Nikon just cede that territory, especially when they could nudge buyers back to the $1200-$1500 prosumer range? It's apparent that DX does offer some advantages, especially for long-lens shooters, over FX, so why would Nikon not cultivate a market segment they've already developed? From a customer standpoint, Nikon offered something -- a high-end prosumer DX body whose only real weakness was poor high-ISO performance -- and never updated it. So they created expectations and then didnt fulfill them. That created a space for Fuji and m4/3 to absorb leakers, who got a bonus of a smaller overall system to boot. I get that the F-mount being 35mm means you can't simply start over from scratch like Sony and Fuji have, but Nikon could also be much more innovative in the FX market. The Df, for instance, is a poor implementation of a sensor which could have been great in another body. And i also dont understand the justification for lack of innovation in DX on Nikon's part. the 16-80 isnt particularly innovative in 2015, but it at least represents something other than an 18-xx(x) zoom. but there's no excuse for not making a complete set of fast DX primes, since you're not just pushing people to FX, you're actually pushing them to other systems. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>since 1959, it makes far more sense for them to concentrate their higher-end to the FX format. On various forums, people have been complaining about the lack of a successor to the D300 since 2010/2011; there is absolutely no way Nikon would miss it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if thom hogan is to be believed, the D300 successor has been in the R&D development pipeline on at least two separate occasions over the past 5-6 years. there's a lot of speculation we'll finally see this body in 2016.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If Nikon had introduced some "D400" as a successor to the D300/D300S, they could have easily lost money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if they initially overpriced it. the D300 and D300s both fell to about $1500 within a year of launch as well, but one could argue that Nikon sabotaged its own market by calling the D7000 a DX flagship camera and pricing it at $1200 which is 33% reduction from their previous "flagship." IMHO, where they lost money (i.e., costumer confidence) was in <em>not</em> clearly iterating their products. it's crazy that a $2100 camera, which is what the D600 initially cost, could have a worse AF system than a camera priced hundreds less like the D7100. we can talk about tsunamis, earthquakes, and QC issues, but this is a company which once led the way in DX and hasn't shown any clear map for the future of that format since 2007. even the DPreview<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s"> review</a> of the D300s from 2009 noted, "this success appears to have left Nikon unsure how to improve on its APS-C flagship."<br>

<br>

Also, we have to ask, how much money did Nikon lose by <em>not</em> upgrading the D300s? Any reckoning here would include not just leakers, but those who held firm and didnt buy either an FX body nor a lower-spec DX body. the big body ergonomics of the d300 (not to mention large buffer and fast frame rate) kept a lot of people away from the D7000, D7100, and D7200 -- see my earlier point about managing consumer expectations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, APS-C will always lag behind FX in terms of high-ISO results. Once you get into the Fuji mirrorless system, you have pretty much locked yourself out of FX (unless you are willing to deal with the trouble of having multiple incompatible systems).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is generally true, however, a Fuji APS-C body from 2013 has better hi-ISO results than the original Canon 5D, and can comfortably shoot at 3200, which is a bit of a dividing line in terms of performance metrics. The thing is that now with Sony developing its mirrorless full frame line, there's nothing to guarantee a high-ISO shooter wont gravitate toward the A7s instead of Nikon (except maybe investment in lenses).<br>

<br>

And speaking as someone who does indeed own "multiple incompatible systems," i can tell you that i'm far from being alone. the problem from Nikon's standpoint, is how do you get a leaker back before they become a liquidator ;) ??? right now im not really interested in any of Nikon's DX lenses or bodies, and i waited out the 600 and 610 because i needed at least as good AF as the d300s provided. i may still get a D750, but will probably keep adding to my Fuji inventory as well. The last FX lens i bought was the Sigma 35 ART, not a Nikon lens, and even if Nikon updates the 24-70/2.8 with stabilization, i'm not sure i would buy another big clunker like that.<br>

<br>

i dont think Fuji leakers are complaining about the lack of full frame sensors (i never see those threads on the Fuji forum); they're realizing how bloated and unwieldy mirrored full frame systems are, and really enjoying the weight savings while still maintaining optical quality and access to killer lenses. The bodies keep improving, too. but while we're on the subject, nearly all the fuji X cameras use the same battery and sensors -- which cant be said for nikon FX nor DX. if you own both DX and FX nikons--which many do--you already know about the incompatibility issues across systems. (which is why the d300/d700 combo made some sense, since they shared batteries and controls.) That makes having multiple bodies and different lens/body configurations on that system a breeze, and the system is only getting more versatile with every lens/body release. uh, 90/2? 16/1.4? yes, please. there is a caveat: i have heard some grumbling about Fuji needing to move to a 24mp sensor for APS-C to better compete with Sony, Nikon and now Panasonic's 20mp m4/3 body, but there is surprisingly little chatter bemoaning the lack of full frame. what Fuji has been able to achieve so far with "just" 16mp is impressive, any way you slice it.<br>

<br>

Anyway, i dont want to turn this into a "bash Nikon" thread, because they have established a very good to excellent baseline for digital cameras, but treading water in a competitive market isn't the same as innovation--something they used to do very well. i think there was a missed opportunity not to do more with the D4 sensor on the FX front. the rumored D500 and D5 will have to be very good to stop any more leakage, but by the time they come out, they'll likely be competing with a new generation of more mature mirrorless competitors, i.e. Panasonic G8. already, the XT1 has caught up with DX for everything except dedicated action sports, and maybe dedicated video (not one of Fuji's strong points), and there is strong anticipation for the XPro 2, whenever that arrives. </p>

<p>Eric, Amen .....</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I get that the F-mount being 35mm means you can't simply start over from scratch like Sony and Fuji have, but Nikon could also be much more innovative in the FX market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But.. Nikon tried .... Nikon starrted the infamous "One system" .<br>

Nikon could have started a new "DX line" with a smaller registry distance and make this much more flexible, but instead started the "one system line "utilizing a small sensor. Nothing wrong here, but if Nikon can start a "One Line" from scratch, then why not a dedicated "DX line" with a "DX Mount" ( and a step up ring connecting existing lenses to it ....) ? </p>

<p>My intention was not to turn this into Fuji thread nor a Nikon bash, however I will explain my reason for buying the Fuji at this point. The reason is largely due to their lenses and the Xtrans sensor. The image quality and sensor performance rivals that of FF sensors. There are other small reasons but that was the main one.<br>

Thank you everyone for helping me to decided on which lens I should look at getting first. I will go with the versatile 35mm f/1.4 for now (its also the least expensive).</p><div></div>

<p>Glad to hear you are liking the Fuji system, Kyle. Although I am an entrenched Nikon user, I would like to see Fuji and M43 succeed. Good to have different options out there.</p>

<p>I wonder if you can share any observations about your experience with Fuji versus Nikon DSLR? Do you like the EVF? How is the battery life on the Fuji? Good color from the Fuji?</p>

<p>I have both Nikon and Fuji. Comparing them, Nikon of course has full frame available, so you can get much better low light performance (though Fuji is definitely competitive with Nikon APSC). Fuji has been making a lot of gains with their AF systems, but Nikon DSLRs still AF better.</p>

<p>Fuji (and all mirrorless) have worse battery life than most current DSLRs. You get a few hundred shots, usually, instead of 1,000+. With mirrorless, you have an EVF or a live view screen running whenever you're using the camera, so picture what your DSLR battery life would be like if you only used live view and that's basically what mirrorless does.</p>

<p>Where Fuji really shines is lens quality. Most Fuji lenses are as good as the best equivalent lenses you can get for Nikon. So the 56mm is on a level with the 85mm 1.4G, the 35mm is at least as good as any of the F mount 50mm options, etc. - with the possible exception of the 18mm, which isn't great in the corners. Even the 18-55mm kit zoom is as good as a Nikon 17-55 lens (though with more plastic involved - build is somewhere between a 16-85 Nikkor and a 17-55 Nikkor). But all of these lenses are smaller and cheaper than their top shelf F mount counterparts. If you have a kit of an X-T1 with 16, 35 and 56mm lenses and know what you're you could get some great results, at less weight and cost than a Nikon FX camera with equally good 24, 50 and 85mm lenses. It also does a great job with JPG shooting and colors, once you get the hang of what the different "film" modes are for and how to fine tune the settings and save them.</p>

<p>Battery life comes with the territory. For one thing most mirrorless cameras are small such that you can't (and most likely don't want to) accommodate a huge battery, and you need to keep powering the rear LCD or EVF for composition. However, I simply don't see what the huge problem is if you need to change battery every, e.g. 500 shutter actuations. In the old days we change film every 36 exposures, and a lot of us lived with that for decades. Sometimes I photograph birds "machine gun" style for an hour or two, and even so I don't reach 500 images within a day that often.</p>

<p>Concerning lenses, in these days just about any lens manufacturer can produce great lenses. Sigma is a good example. I am sure Hasselblad wouldn't jump from Zeiss to Fujinon to build lenses for them if Fujinon lenses weren't excellent.</p>

<p>For me, battery life shouldn't be a big deal but it is. The more often I have to change the battery, the more likely the dead battery will come at a bad time. You can work around that by aggressively changing the battery when it goes below 50%, but battery life is most definitely a DSLR advantage I appreciate.</p>

I'm with Shun on this. A change after some 500 frames. Carry a couple of spares. They take little time to reload.<br>It is indeed a much bigger 'thing' (not a problem either) to have to change magazine or rolls of film after 12 shots (i still do that. Still relevant. Not something from "the old days").<br><br>And speaking about Hasselblad: they have (had?) they worked together with Fuji to design lenses. So had it in their own hands how excellent (or not) these lenses would become. Fuji is a company with a broadish market, including people who do not want to pay as much for a lens as Hasselblad users would. That they can and indeed do make excellent lenses does not mean that all of the lenses they make are equally excellent (just like those tiny cell phone lenses Zeiss made aren't quite on par with their better lenses).

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon could have started a new "DX line" with a smaller registry distance and make this much more flexible, but instead started the "one system line "utilizing a small sensor. Nothing wrong here, but if Nikon can start a "One Line" from scratch, then why not a dedicated "DX line" with a "DX Mount" ( and a step up ring connecting existing lenses to it ....) ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the N1 system doesnt know what it wants to be and doesn't make the most of what those cameras are capable of. a 1" sensor seemed a curious choice until Sony came out with the RX100. the original J1 and S1's were overpriced and had UI's which seemed to be missing features -- no selectable 1600 in Auto-ISO. and the V series also has curious design choices which limit, rather than enhance, functionality. but to answer your question, Nikon will probably eventually be forced to do just what you are suggesting, which Sony and Olympus do already.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reason is largely due to their lenses and the Xtrans sensor. The image quality and sensor performance rivals that of FF sensors. There are other small reasons but that was the main one.<br />Thank you everyone for helping me to decided on which lens I should look at getting first. I will go with the versatile 35mm f/1.4 for now (its also the least expensive).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's true, the IQ on the 16mp Xtrans--i have the slightly older version on the XE1 which allegedly has less pixel-smearing than the XT1/XE2-- punches above its weight, so to speak. im finding the XE1 to be great travel/street/landscape cameras. the 18-55 kit lens is comparable to the $1900 Nikon 24-70/2.8 and its smaller and stabilized to boot. i would never take the 24-70 hiking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most Fuji lenses are as good as the best equivalent lenses you can get for Nikon. So the 56mm is on a level with the 85mm 1.4G, the 35mm is at least as good as any of the F mount 50mm options, etc. - with the possible exception of the 18mm, which isn't great in the corners. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

quality lenses is a big part of the appeal. compact size, metal build, excellent image quality go a long way. i doubt the Fuji 35 is as good as the Sigma ART or the Zeiss Otus or the Nikkor 58/1.4, but it does deliver a better price-to-performance ratio, and FWIW, it's better on Fuji bodies than the Zeiss Toutt 32mm. WRT the Fuji 18mm, it's a wide-angle pancake designed for street shooting, not landscape. So the corners shouldn't matter that much. Nikon doesnt even offer a pancake lens for FX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have a kit of an X-T1 with 16, 35 and 56mm lenses and know what you're you could get some great results, at less weight and cost than a Nikon FX camera with equally good 24, 50 and 85mm lenses. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>great point, and one that goes back to Nikon's decision to consumerize their DX line. Nikon doesnt offer a 16mm or 56 DX lens, and the 35/1.8 is sharp but has optical flaws.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Battery life comes with the territory. For one thing most mirrorless cameras are small such that you can't (and most likely don't want to) accommodate a huge battery, and you need to keep powering the rear LCD or EVF for composition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>extra batteries for my Fuji cams are like $20 each and they're small. my Nikon FX charger is huge and less portable. if you can keep the chimping down, you can conserve batteries on mirrorless, but i do finding myself having to review pics in the EVF a lot. this would be less of a problem if Fuji had a better battery-life indicator.<br>

<br>

Kyle im sure you will like the 35/1.4 a lot, especially for bokeh/low-light pics. hard to make a bad choice with any of the Fuji primes.</p>