Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="stmv" data-source="post: 68321" data-attributes="member: 10038">no no,, same multiplier effect on the 35mm,, which is 1.5*35 or about 52.2 mm, The FX lens versus DX lens is the amount of area that the lens projects on the back plane where the sensor resides. So, a DX lens will not project as large of a circle, essentially JUST covering the DX sensor while a FX lens projection is large enough to cover the DX sensor AND a FX sensor. So, one nice thing about buying a FX lens is that if you ever upgrade to the larger sensor, you don't have to upgrade all those DX lens. As far of do you want an effective range of 52 mm (the 35 lens) or an effective 78mm (the 50mm) range depends on your subject and how willing you can move with the feet. Whenever using Primes, no such thing as one lens. It all depends on the subject and range.&nbsp; A reason that people recommend the 52 mm FX lens is that the 1.8 is a BARGAIN at say 130 dollars for one of the sharpest lens in their catalog.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="stmv, post: 68321, member: 10038"] no no,, same multiplier effect on the 35mm,, which is 1.5*35 or about 52.2 mm, The FX lens versus DX lens is the amount of area that the lens projects on the back plane where the sensor resides. So, a DX lens will not project as large of a circle, essentially JUST covering the DX sensor while a FX lens projection is large enough to cover the DX sensor AND a FX sensor. So, one nice thing about buying a FX lens is that if you ever upgrade to the larger sensor, you don't have to upgrade all those DX lens. As far of do you want an effective range of 52 mm (the 35 lens) or an effective 78mm (the 50mm) range depends on your subject and how willing you can move with the feet. Whenever using Primes, no such thing as one lens. It all depends on the subject and range. A reason that people recommend the 52 mm FX lens is that the 1.8 is a BARGAIN at say 130 dollars for one of the sharpest lens in their catalog. [/QUOTE]

Verification