< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX specs

Pin It

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX specs:

Min focusing distance: 1 ft. / 0.3 m.

Weight: 7 oz. /200 g.

One aspherical element

Rubber seal: yes

Not a "N" lens

Price: EUR 250

Just for comparison the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G (what the hell is that price on Amazon anyway) can focus at 0.45 m/1.5 ft. and weights 9.9 oz. / 280 g.

We should know the rest of the details in few hours. Nikon usually makes their announcements at midnight US Eastern time (morning in Europe). The D700, D90 and the AF-S 50mm came up at midnight, but the D3x came up at 11 pm, so take your pick: 11pm or midnight tonight (US Eastern time). We should start seeing leaks already.

I will be online.... sniffing.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Johnny

    Any pictures? ;)

  • GingerJimmy

    any signs of a af-s 35 1.4 fx? ;)

  • dhchen

    Nikon announces their product at 1300 JST, that’s UTC+9.

  • http://dishio.eu dishio

    No.
    The latest nikkor AF-S 50 f/1.4 weights about 420g.
    The old nikkor AF-D 50 f/1.4 weights about 230g.
    I was pretty disappointed to see that the weight nearly doubled.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin
      • DJK

        According to the spec page in my 50G manual:

        Weight: Approx. 280g (9.9oz)

        • Eric Nordenstam

          My kitchen scales say that my AF-S 50 mm is 280 g naked and 340 g with front/back lens cap, hood and hoya pro1 clear filter. Those scales are cheap but I don’t think the error is larger than say 20 g.

    • Ernst

      “No” to you. I’ve got a 50mm f/1.4 AF-D and an AF-S right in front of me, and they feel almost exactly the same weight. One isn’t double the other.

    • Anonymous

      OWNED

  • Chris

    Confirm, this is just a lens for DX SLRs?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      yep, no info for now on any new FX lenses.

      • thank you

        Is this first dx non zoom lens?

        • Anonymous

          No, the 10.5/2.8 fisheye is DX.

          • thank you

            oh ok that lens make sense though. to me this is strange

  • PJS

    Despite the rumors of the death of DX, Nikon is producing a new DX lens. Go figure!

    • DJK

      Frankly the rumours of the death of DX are just silly. FX bodies are a tiny, tiny fraction of overall dSLR sales. That fraction will grow, but FX will have a very hard time penetrating into the budget end of the market – the budget end is very price conscious and FX sensors will always cost more than DX sensors. Since the budget dSLR will be DX for the foreseeable future, it makes perfect sense to produce the staple lenses in a DX format, and the “normal” f1.8 is a staple lens if ever there was one.

    • Juergen

      “Frankly the rumours of the death of DX are just silly. ”

      You are fully right, indeed they are. It’s nonsense from these who don’t know the basic facts.

      There’s two different ways to look at:
      A) Compare prices of cameras who are (almost) identical but differ in chip size factor, e.g. D300 vs. D700. That is the price difference to the end user. Current prices at B&H are 1700 USD for the D300 and 2700 USD for the D700. Makes 1000 USD difference.
      B) Calculate it from the difference in area, which then in the end leads to ca. 40 USD for a DX sensor in numbers, a FX sensor is ca. 9x (!!), leading to ca. 320 USD sensor price difference. With the usual factor for the user’s buyer price of (ca.!) 3.5x you have a user price difference of (ca.!) 1100 USD.

      And now take in mind the prices of the models who make the vast, vast majority of sales, that’s D40 et. al, these are D40 with 18-55 for 450 USD and D60 w/18-55VR for 550 USD…

      • DX is dead

        Nikon released the first usable digital SLR (D1) in 1999 and the last film camera (F6) in 2004. It took only five years and film was dead. Now, the D3 was released two years ago and I’d be most surprised if we’d see any new DX cameras 3 years from now. The arguments however are the same as back then: FX/digital is just too expensive, film/DX is going to stay for a long-long time, the majority don’t need FX/digital, etc etc..

        • DX will live on!

          DX to FX isn’t the sea change that film to digital was, so I don’t think your analogy works here. FX will become more and more standard and popular, but I don’t believe that DX cameras will go away, just like point and shoot cameras with DX and smaller sensors won’t go away any time soon. Unlike many of us hardcore and professional users, there are many consumers who could give a rat’s @ss about FX. They just want a cheap/affordable camera system with interchangable lenses. DX fits that market perfectly and will for many years.

        • Jon Paul

          Canon released the Canon EOS-1Ds in 2003, and Canon is still making cameras based on APS-C sensors. I think the appropriate way to say it is that DX will never again be purchased by some photographers. It’s not dead (6 years on now) and won’t be for a long, long while. Economy of scale arguments for FX work for DX, too, and you’ll always be able to fit about twice as many DX sensors on a wafer.

          • Juergen

            “and you’ll always be able to fit about twice as many DX sensors on a wafer.”

            The exact amount is defined by wafer diameter, chip surface area and chip shape, all three combined define the factor. With a typical 200 mm wafer and FX and DX chips the factor is (32:12) 2.7.
            That is the factor which can never be undercut, even when there would be absolutely no wafer defects – but that is simply not the case. What can happen is that the 9x factor (surface area AND defects combined) sinks, but only marginal in the foreseeable future.

        • Juergen

          “Now, the D3 was released two years ago and I’d be most surprised if we’d see any new DX cameras 3 years from now. The arguments”

          So prepare to be most surprised in three years! Because there will be definitely new DX cameras then.

          “however are the same as back then: FX/digital is just too expensive, film/DX is going to stay for a long-long time, the majority don’t need FX/digital, etc etc..”

          No, it doesn’t have anything to do with “need” or what happened when digital began to come to market – it only has to do with cost.

          See my other answer to Elliot below.

      • http://www.elliotlevin.com Elliot

        Yes, but economies of scale would tell us that as more FX chips are produced, their price will reduce. While I realize that the FX is physically larger, costs in the tech world are driven much more by the scale of production and supply/demand than costs of materials.

        • Juergen

          “Yes, but economies of scale would tell us that as more FX chips are produced, their price will reduce. While I realize that the FX is physically larger, costs in the tech world are driven much more by the scale of production and supply/demand than costs of materials.”

          That’s THE fundamental misunderstanding regarding camera chip production.

          To produce a camera chip you have a round wafer where the rectangular chips have to be cut from.

          On a typical 200 mm wafer you can place 12 FX sensors, but 32 DX sensors. And then comes the defect rate, which much worsens the ratio, currently roughly to 9x. So you get ca. 9x MORE DX chips from a wafer than FX chips.

          So when chip prices fall – which they can’t endlessly, the chip fab alone costs roughly 1 BILLION USD! – the factor remains. Means even cutting the prices into half the chip cost would be 20 for a DX chip and 180 for a FX chip. Given the usual 3.5 factor for the
          user’s end price this means ((180-20)x3.5) 560 USD MORE for an otherwise identical FX camera. And there’s also other factors for the camera body, you have to have a bigger, heavier and more costly shutter to achieve the identical performance of a DX camera, plus of course a bigger and more expensive viewfinder/prism, given the same pixel density you have to have a faster and more expensive buffer etc., also these things add up in the end…

          And now see the prices the entry level DX cams are sold for, a D40 alone goes for ca. 400 USD, a D60 for ca. 450 USD. Now divide it by the 3.5 factor and you have the production cost, means a D40 is roughly 115 USD and a D60 is roughly 130 USD. Now get the 560 USD DIFFERENCE for the chip alone and you will realize that DX will stay for a long, long, really, really, looooooooong time, years, many, many years.

          All the rest is unfounded blurb from people who don’t have a clue, reading that nonsence thrice a day on the usual digital camera forums doesn’t make it come true!

          Things might change once we are past CCD and CMOS, but (at least) until then DX will stay.

          • Jon Paul

            Well said, Juergen. I find myself wondering if “Juergen” is really just one of my aliases.
            Then I remember you’re more intelligent.

  • DNHJR

    The 50mm f/1.4G is hard to get now and people will jack the price up. I remember seeing the 18-200mm VR for $1000 when it was hard to get. I shows you how greedy some people can be.

  • Sean Wise

    My first reaction was why in the world would Nikon do this. But when you think about it, 50mm was the “standard” lens for the 35mm film world for a long time. A 35mm DX lens is almost the same field of view for APC sized sensors. As someone who shoots with primes alot and really likes the sharpness in the results, I hope Nikon keeps this 35mm lens as inexpensive as it can for D40 and D60 shooters who wants to experiment with a high quality optics but are not ready to take the plunge for high priced glass.

  • Anonymous

    Told you it was DX ;)

  • ___

    I bet that this lens will be usable on FX just fine, maybe with slight vignetting comparable to the 70-200 VR.

    They’ll bring out a prohibitively expensive 1.4 FX version later so the armchair fraction can get one for their D3Xes, to shoot their grandchildren with ;)

    • Nikon Fan

      Yes, you are correct it will be usable on a FX body along with all other DX lenses. You will just loose more than half of your pixel count. In that case why would you buy a FX body, you should keep shooting with a DX body.

      Everyone needs to remember that there a two parallel paths that are currently moving forward at the same time and Nikon has not yet told everyone at what speed each path will move. I susspect that this is market driven.

    • Jon Paul

      Nikon Fan has a point. Unless there’s some way to disable the auto DX crop feature of the D3/D700, the camera will throw away everything outside the image circle the lens tells the camera it has.

      • David Chu

        The D3, D3x, and D700 have an option to disable the auto DX crop.

        • Jon Paul

          Good to know, David. Thanks.

  • Nikon Fan

    I think that the real story will be the details of the AF-S DX 50mm lens.

    Will it have the plastic mount? Or will it have the metal mount?
    Will it have the rubber weather seal? Or will it not?
    Will it have the Nano coating? Or will it not?

    I think that the answers to these questions and possibly a few others that I may not have considered will tell the future.

    If the new lens has the premium features as questioned above, then I would say that Nikon is serious about maintaining a semi-professional DX body for some time in the future.

    If the new lens does not have these premium features, I would speculate that this lens is primarily directed to the D40, D60 and D90 users and not the premium D200, D300 and so on users. If this is the case I would say that the long term future of premium DX bodies may be limited to maybe the D400 and then within the next 2 years the Semi-Pro body (D500?) would be a FX body.

    Nikon will for a long time in the future continue to make DX bodies for the cost, size and weight. It just makes good business sense. This AF-S DX 35mm primes lens makes perfect sense for the future of their DX low cost bodies.

    The tell will be how this new lens is built, but what do I know? I am just speculating like most other people.

    • DNHJR

      Those are goog questions I would like to know. But with a US coast at about $325 I bet its going to have a plastic mount. I hope not.

      • Nikon Fan

        You are probably right, I had not done the conversion from what was stated above.

        If the AF-S 50mm is $499.95 at B&H then the AS-S 35mm at $325.00 would more than likely have less quality features.

    • Jon Paul

      I’m more interested in the performance. DX lenses are cheaper to design and make, anyway.

  • Tim Catchall

    If Nikon releases a 35mm f1.8 DX lens with a plastic mount and then Canon updates its 35mm f1.4L (full frame), then Nikon are going to look very, very stupid indeed.

    • http://www.w1000w.net douglas

      not necessarily… honestly i dont see any real comparison between the two lenses in that situation. you are simply looking at two different lenses for two different markets within the world of photography… the 35mm DX lens, will simply be for entry level photographers (i garontee the majority of people who buy this lens will be D40(x) and D60 users) while the market for the Canon lens will be much higher end (mostly 5D and 1D(s) users with a few 40D and 50D users mixed in). so it makes sense that the Canon will have higher end features and obviously be a higher price…

  • http://www.joerodricks.com Joe Rodricks

    EUR 250 is way too much for that lens. It should be more like EUR 100.

    • Nikon Fan

      If that is the case, it will diffinitely be a consumer lens with the plastic mount and no other pre lens features.

    • fotomik

      Oh come on, the 50 1.8 is around 139€ in Finland, and the 35 2.0 is somewhere in the 350€-400€ region, I think.

      A wider than 50mm lens with AF-S is surely not going to be cheaper than the simplest lens in the Nikon line-up.
      And it shouldn’t be.

      i don’t understand why people always assume that newer lenses somehow HAVE to be cheaper than the older, less good versions that they replace. Same seems to go with cameras though.

      • ChrisL

        Lets wait and see the test results before concluding “older, less good versions”?

        Because one development path is to pick a feature that is believed to be needed, like AF-S; and then pay for that by simplifying or reducing the quality of the optics. Its a trade off.

        On the other hand, an aspheric sounds promising. Interesting to see how this lens stacks up to the Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 aspheric. (Which is an FX lens, by the way, CPU enabled, manual focus).

  • Neil

    If this rumor is true, it should help put to end the dream of some that Nikon is abandoning DX. It’s utterly laughable that people think that DX means consumer/cheap grade. And it’s incredibly silly to think that only metal bodies with metal mounts make good pictures.

    • Nikon Fan

      I have never said that Nikon is abandoning DX format. They currently provide both DX and FX format bodies and some where in the future and somewhere in the middle will be the break between the two. I do not know where that break will be, but it has been years since a pro DX lens has been introduced. So it would seem reasonable to speculate that there may be an end to semi-pro and pro level DX bodies at some point. If the new AF-S DX 35mm lens does not have some of the other features that the AF-S 50mm does this supports the fact that DX will continue, but it will in my opinion be another sign that there will be a break in the DX and FX formats somewhere.

      With the exception of the D300 all other DX bodies are considered to be consumer grade bodies. This does not mean that they are “cheap”, but they are lesser priced than the others are. This too also applies to most of the DX lenses, most of the newer ones do not have the same features as the newer full frame lenses do. This does not mean that you cannot take good pictures with them, in most cases a capable person can take good pictures with either. The primary difference would be the features and the durability and of course the price.

      The price is the basic driver to this issue. That is why Nikon and all others provide different price points so all may choose for themself and buy based on their needs, budget and desire.

      • Rocky Kenwell

        My Leica takes better photos than a $8000 D3x and is cheaper

        • Reich Michmann

          My G10 takes better photos than a Hasselblad/Phase One and is way cheaper.

  • anon

    Why Nikon Why? Was my ship jumping in vain? When am I going to see some updated FX primes? Now I just feel silly.

    • Tim Catchall

      +1

    • Scarecrow

      Yes, you probably are :)

  • D40-owner

    Well, if this is true, then this is it for me.
    I own a D40 for quite some time, and the only thing I truly miss from other D models is the ability to use AF in fast AF-D lenses for indoor family events. Everything else is just great, (I don’t shoot sports) – 6Mp, clean enough ISO800, AF is accurate, Pre-WB, etc…

    I have been looking for a low-light solution, and I was getting to the point where I was looking into the Sigma 30 HSM (expensive, AF not so accurate), Nikon 50 AF-S (cheaper, but too long), or even the AF-D 35 (no AF). This Nikon 35 AF-S changes the game. I would buy this lens first thing Monday, if it was available. 250Eur, 350Eur, that’s perfectly fine, even if it is DX and plastic all over. Dang, I was getting ready to drop 400Eur on the Sigma….

    I guess there must be many, many amateur shooters like myself out there. No money to justify going up to larger models, but wanting to shoot birthday parties in available light.
    To be honest, my 35mm lens requirements would be:
    - Fast (F/2 or lower), AF-S to AF in my D40, Low distortion, Low CA, Low fringing, Low vignetting.
    What I don’t really care about:
    - FX, AF speed, AF manual override, Weight, Metal mount, Sealing, Macro Focusing.

    So if we get an amateur/slow/plastic/DX 35mm AF-S, but with the great optics of all the latest Nikon lenses, then it will be a hit. At least for me. : )

    Cheers,
    See you all on the other side of the announcement.

    • jsmyth

      You are a bit like myself, I have a D40x, in this lens category there is no perfect lens but hopefully this can fulfill that role.

      I primarily would like it as a compact, travel lens. I keep telling myself I need a metal mount but I have the 18-135 and it is fine. And when it weighs 200g I guess it is not all that important anyway…

      • Tom

        And we’re not alone – many people will buy this lens because the price makes it the best option for D40/60 users who want some real dof control in a standard lens.

        ‘Low-end’ DX users are not well-represented online as it seems to be mostly a vocal minority of FX users who think DX will die and the 70-200 VR is not good enough.

        A rep at Photokina predicted this lens months ago and also said the next lens would be an 85. If / when this happens, I expect to see the FXers start complaining that this was the one lens that didn’t need an update, blah blah blah.

        I’m a D90 user and I’m very pleased with the new lens. I have only one concern now – how does the image quality compare with the 35/2 ?

  • Anonymous

    why won’t you let us see the link where you get all the information from?

    or did you post this news while sleepwalking?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      if I post the source/link, they will shut it down and I am hoping to get more info on the future. What do you prefer?

  • Crabby

    Doesn’t anyone here shoot long lenses? The benefits of DX in such work is huge, saving both money and weight. Have you priced 400mm, 500mm, or 600mm VR lenses recently? Would you take one on a vacation trip vs. a 70-300mm VRII?

    The question of whether the D500 and D600 will be DX cameras is interesting and will be determined, I believe, by the sales of earlier DX models in this class. As I’ve written here before, I expect the D400 to be largely a warmed-over D300 with video and a few more pixels, with an early released demanded by Nikon marketing. It will probably be $2 K street price for the first year vs. just over a ‘thou for a demo D300 with a year’s warranty. It would seem to help sell lots of both D300′s and D700′s to me.

    My guess on the street price of the 50mm f/1.8 G DX: $100 under the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 initially, or just a little under $300 for the Nikon. As Sigma lowers the price of their lens, say to $300, Nikon will drop their price to $240. I expect this lens will be available as an alternative kit for the D60′s replacement, offering speed and lower DOF and sort-of countering the Olympus/Panny newer 4/3 cameras with their pancake 25mm (50mm efl).. If so, lots of amateurs won’t actually like primes (“You mean I’ve got to walk forward to make the subject bigger?”) and I’ll expect to pick one up from eBay for under $200 to keep my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D company.

    Nikon will eventually exercise their patent on the non-Bayer sensor. Its initial application will almost certainly be a DX camera as the cost of making such a product in an FX size will initially be huge. When a camera with this sensor comes out (I’m guessing in the D500), you won’t be wondering about DX’s viability for quite a while.

  • Nate S

    I apologize if someone else has already said this, but why not release a 35mm FX lens that is a f/1.8 which would still be the 50mm equivalent on a DX body, i.e. one prime that serves both communities who need/desire that focal length? Plus it would be filling holes in the “desperately needs to be upgraded” line-up.
    Just my 2c worth.

    • ChrisL

      Because that FX lens would be bigger, heavier, cost more, and still be sneered at by the armchair brigade and the FX camera owners for being “only” f/1.8 (Oddly, that seems tnot to apply to the holy trinity of “only” f/2.8 zooms).

      That market can have an FX, f/1.4 or f/1.2, nano-coated-even-if-it-doesn’t-help version at $700. Eventually.

    • DJK

      Because the optics required for a good 35mm FX are more complicated than for a 35MM DX. Optical design of a lens is easiest when the focal length is approximately the same as the imaging circle diameter (this is about all there is to the so-called “normal” lens). The shorter your focal length is relative to the imaging circle diameter, the worse the distortion, vignetting, etc problems become, requiring more complicated (expensive) optics. By shrinking the imaging circle down to the focal length, the 35mm DX becomes a very simple optical design with significantly smaller glass elements than would be required for a 35mm FX. Given that the target audience of this lens will be budget-minded, Nikon will sell a truckload more at $300 than they would at the $500-600 an FX version would likely cost. Higher volume, more profit, and there’s nothing stopping them from releasing an expensive FX 35mm down the road.

    • Nate S

      Both your points make sense, plus I learned a little more about the physics of optic design. Wouldn’t the smaller DX sensor take advantage of the better area of a larger imaging circle with respect to sharpness, aberration and vignetting?

      Learning aside, to quote you DJK, “the 35mm DX becomes a very simple optical design with significantly smaller glass elements than would be required for a 35mm FX” makes sense from a ‘sell it to the more affordable DX community’ but wouldn’t tooling for two 35mm lenses be more expensive than one? Interested to read what you or anyone else has to say :-)

      • Tony M

        Exactly the point i was thinking about. Not only does one have to have two sets of tooling but also there’s the downtime when one has to change from one production run to another.
        Try and buy a pair of ‘size 7′ socks sometime!
        Would have been more logical for Nikon to have made an F1.8 35mm FX lens – one size fits all. Not everyone needs f1.4:
        1) The lower f stop lenses all have pretty poor performance wide open.
        2) As high ISO performance of cameras improves, the need for low F stops diminishes.

  • http://nikonkrab.multiply.com/ HDZ

    Hope it’s pancake design…. Pray Pray Pray!!!

    • GingerJimmy

      can a pancake have an af-s motor? don’t think so…

  • Jeff

    Compare the spec’s of AF 35/2D:

    Minimum Focus Distance 0.85 ft. (0.25m)

    Lens (Elements/Groups) 6/5

    Maximum Reproduction Ratio 1:4.2

    Dimensions 2.5×1.7in. (Diameter x Length) 65×44.5mm (Diameter x Length)

    Weight 7.2oz. (205g)

    It’s very likely the new lens is based on the same design of the AF 35/2D.

    • markdphotoguy

      Not likely since there is an aspherical element in the mix and that will necessitate a different optical arrangement of groups.

      • Tom

        The new one also seems to have a rubber seal. That hints to me that it isn’t just for D40/60 users and we can expect a metal mount and pretty decent optics. No Nano and no ED because they would add a lot to the price but not a lot to the quality and push the lens out of the target market. I think the metal mount is possible within the 200 grams because although it will have the extra weight of an AF-S motor, the elements will be much smaller than the 35/2, so the weight can stay about the same. Smaller elements and AF-S motor should ensure fast AF performance too. The aspherical element should help corner-to-corner performance.

        It’s all good news for DX users. At last we have a Nikkor fast standard prime !

        I’m going to get one asap.

        • Nikon Fan

          How do you know that it has a rubber seal? Are there any pictures of it yet?

          • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

            If I disclose the site, I will not be able to get more info that way. Just wait till 11:00 pm eastern time… another 51 minutes :)

  • markdphotoguy

    Strange that it would be only dx. Doesn’t make any sense since the FX world also needs a 35mm f1.x lens. Unless Nikon is about to release a “compact” with interchangeable lenses with a dx sensor. As cool as that would be I won’t hold my breath on that one.

  • S

    Funny thing that neither Ken nor Thom saw this one coming, like no one else.
    And I just made the decision to go for FX lenses, but if the price are right I might consider this one. My D60 has to go somewhere one day.

    /S

  • thank you

    I wonder y it be DX? this weird. do you like fx or dx?

  • another reader

    I haven’t read everything written yet, but I want to say this: if this lens is real and if it is a DX lens, then Nikon is taking direct aim at Sigma. Sigma’s 30mm f/1.4 is a DX lens specifically aimed at D40, D40X, and D60 owners who wanted a fast wide (okay, normal) prime that had autofocus. If Nikon can make one slightly slower – but still fast enough – for less money and with autofocus for those cameras, they will. I was going to buy the Sigma 30 any day now, but if this lens is really coming out, I’d seriously consider it over the Sigma. Especially if it’s cheaper. This lens is AIMED at budget-concious photographers with cheap cameras, otherwise it would be FX and have nano coating or ED glass or whatever and cost $1200, like Canon’s. But for those with FX cameras, I wonder if anything’s coming? I like to think the people at Nikon are smart, and if they’ve seen the used prices for the 28/1.4′s, then something’s definitely coming.

  • anonymous

    The only thing strange about this lens is that it is DX. Nano an ED glass are only needed where Nano coating and ED glass are needed. Neither are essential in a 50mm or 50mm equivalent FOV design.

    I bought a Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2. Glad I stuck with that. I will wait till Nikon releases an FX 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.8.

  • fansnikon
    • Nikon Fan

      This is interesting, but most of us do not read Japaneese.

  • Tony M
  • Tony M

    Only worthy thing is it has a 52 mm filter size.

  • Tony M

    Anyhow, well done to NR for picking this one up before ‘due date’!

  • Alex

    I think I know now why this is a DX lens… I think they’re just trying to compliment their recent release of the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S lens. 50mm is “standard” for FX cameras, so 35mm (52.5mm equivalent) is nearly “standard” for DX cameras. Now both groups can be happy!

  • Back to top