Canon equivalent to Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX on an APS-C body?
Asked 2/5/2011
3 views
2 answers
0
I shoot with a Canon 40D and a friend uses the Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G on a D90. I’d like a Canon lens that gives roughly similar use and field of view, ideally at a similar budget.
Because the Canon 40D has a 1.6x crop and the D90 has a 1.5x crop, I’m unsure whether I should be looking at 35mm or something closer to 28–30mm. I’ve considered lenses like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 28mm f/1.8, Canon 28mm f/2.8, and Canon 35mm f/2.
Is there a true Canon equivalent, or should I stop worrying about exact equivalence and choose based on my needs? Also, does the higher price of the Canon options mainly come from lens design differences such as full-frame coverage?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
7
I'd worry less about "what's comparable" and worry more about "what's right for you."
The difference in the crop factor between the Canon 40D (1.6x) and the Nikon D90 (1.5x) is fairly small: 56mm EFL vs 52.5mm EFL. That's only a 6.25% difference. If you take a step or two backwards, you'll have the same effective field of view. Have a look at the angle of view calculators here to get an idea.
Similarly: the difference between f/2.0 and f/1.8 isn't huge: only 1/3 of a stop. It's some additional control over depth of field and low-light performance, but probably not enough to make a big deal over in practice. See DOFMaster for more calculations.
Depending on what type of photography you're doing, you could easily lean towards the 28mm f/2.8 over the 35mm f/2. For example, the former would be better for landscapes, because it's wider and the smaller minimum aperture doesn't matter as much. For indoor shots of people, the reverse would be true.
There's going to be differences between the lenses themselves too. Any of the lenses you mentioned might be (less) sharper than the others, or than the equivalent Nikon lenses.
And, of course, it all has to fit into your budget.
So: take a look at how much you want to spend and what you want to photograph, and then pick the most appropriate lens out of your options. Don't worry about what Nikon has; it doesn't really affect you.
Originally by user48. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user48
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
There isn’t a perfect one-to-one Canon match, and exact equivalence matters less than choosing the focal length and speed you actually want.
A Nikon 35mm on a 1.5x APS-C body gives about a 52.5mm equivalent view; a Canon 35mm on a 1.6x body gives about 56mm equivalent. That difference is small in practice. Likewise, f/2 vs f/1.8 is only about 1/3 stop, so it’s not a dramatic real-world gap.
So yes, a Canon 35mm f/2 is broadly comparable in use, even if it’s slightly tighter and slightly slower. A 28mm option will feel a bit wider, which may or may not suit your shooting better.
The higher cost of some Canon options can be explained in part by format coverage: the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX is an APS-C lens, while lenses like the Canon 35mm f/2 cover full frame, which typically makes them larger and more expensive.
Bottom line: don’t chase exact equivalence too hard. Pick 35mm if you want a near-normal view like your friend’s setup, or 28mm if you prefer a slightly wider everyday lens. If you may move to full frame later, a full-frame-compatible Canon lens could be the better long-term choice.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How do 35mm and 50mm prime lenses compare on a Nikon D50 DX body?
Do DX/APS-C lenses use their actual focal length, and do you still apply crop factor?
Does EXIF on a crop-sensor camera show actual focal length or 35mm-equivalent?
Is Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8G DX the closest “normal” lens to 50mm equivalent on a D5100?
Nikon D90: should I start with a 35mm or 50mm prime, and does AF-S or f/1.4 matter?