What are the real differences between Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 DX and FX primes on a DX camera?
Asked 7/23/2017
5 views
2 answers
0
Nikon sells two 35mm f/1.8 DSLR primes: the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G and the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED. I understand that the DX lens is designed for APS-C/DX coverage, while the FX lens covers full frame/FX, and that the FX version includes ED glass. Beyond image circle and ED elements, are these lenses otherwise different in optical design or performance? For someone shooting only on a DX body, is there any meaningful image-quality advantage to the FX 35mm f/1.8G ED that could justify its much higher price?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
1
The second lens is an ED lens, meaning it contains extra-low dispersion elements.
These are quite different optical designs (see the number of elements and groups in the Tech specs on the page you linked to). internally these lenses would be completely different.
This means they can, in principle, have quite different optical characteristics. I think Lenstip.com has detailed tests of both lenses and typically that site will test an FX lens on both FX and DX bodies.
Originally by user46861. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user46861
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes. These lenses are not the same design with a different image circle; they are completely different optical designs, with different element/group layouts and likely different rendering characteristics.
A few key points:
- On a DX body, both are still 35mm f/1.8 lenses, so focal length and maximum aperture are the same.
- The main format difference is coverage: the FX lens projects a larger image circle to cover full frame, while the DX lens is designed only to cover DX.
- “ED” just means the FX lens uses extra-low-dispersion elements; it does not mean the two lenses differ only by adding ED glass.
- Because the optical formulas differ, sharpness, corner performance, and field curvature can differ as well.
From the provided comparisons, the FX version is not automatically “better” on DX. One answer notes MTF charts showing the FX lens softer in the corners than the DX lens, with some field curvature. On a DX camera, the DX lens may therefore be at least as sensible optically, while also being smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
So if you only shoot DX, the higher price of the FX 35mm f/1.8G ED is not justified by ED glass alone. Its main practical advantage is future compatibility with an FX body.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Will a 35mm DX lens on Nikon DX give the same view as a 50mm FX lens?
Which lens should I buy after the kit lens for a Nikon D5100 if I shoot portraits and landscapes outdoors?
Which Nikon f/1.8 prime should I buy for a D3100: 35mm or 50mm?
Will my current Nikon lenses be sharp enough on a 24MP DX body vs 16MP?
Can I use an FX Nikon 50mm f/1.8G lens on a DX Nikon D3200?