Nikkor Z DX MC 35 f/1.7

[MEPER]

For me this new lens is interesting:
https://www.nikon.dk/da_DK/product/lenses/mirrorless/nikkor-z-dx-mc-35mm-f1.7

It can focus very close (assume this is the reason it is called "MC").
I like the DX-format which is nice and compact and for my use gives "good enough" image quality.
The new lens is light and cheap and seems to have very nice bokeh and good aberration control.

Think I will get it!
Just need a "high-end" DX Z-body with IBIS etc. etc. to replace my Z50. But until then I am fine the Z50.
Good to see Nikon still supports the DX-line. A road map for DX bodies would be nice.

[Birna Rørslett]

It's not like the usual 'Micro-"Nikkors of recent that all go to 1:1. This 35mm lens ends at 0.67X (0.67:1) however the blurb writers claim this is "equal to 1:1" for FX. Which is of course is utter nonsense. Nikon guys should know better than peddling such stupidity.

The 105mm f/2.8 MC Z goes straight to 1:1 and is an excellent performer. The shorter sibling 50mm f/2.8 MC is smaller and lighter, but according to reviews not in the same quality league. Plus it has a short working distance. The latter applies even more to the new 35mm f/1.7, meaning one cannot use a lens shade and lighting the subject might be tricky.

[MEPER]

I think "normal" people just like to multiply by 1.5?
Angle of view, magnification, pixel density, lens resolution.

I see your point.

I was thinking of only having that single lens with me for a travel.
I was quite impressed by the test pictures Nikon shows.
It has the angle of view as we normal think of as a "normal lens" and then it can do a bit of macro also.

 

[Birna Rørslett]

Nikon ought to have ended the silly "multiplication game" by now. It can only confuse the end users. Apparently, confusion is contagious and extends to the ad writers as well.

For example, as Frank Fremerey recently wondered: did I really have more than one of 9mm lens? Yes, I have two. The Laowa 9mm f/5.6 is made for FX. What "focal length" will I get when I put that lens on my DX-format Z fc? If the multiplicator "theory"is correct, it should be 6mm -- right?  Or is it "13.5mm" ?? If any of those conditions is true, the FX Laowa 9mm lens on my Z fc will give a different angle of view than my DX-designed Viltrox 9mm. It takes a few seconds to debunk that false assertion. They of course provide the exact same angle of view. Just try (I did).

We could reverse the setup and put the 9mm Viltrox on my Zf. Now, does it behave as a 13.5mm lens? In fact, Nikon won't allow the Zf to remain in FX mode when a DX lens is mounted. If we put a tape across the contacts, the Zf is fooled and will keep the FX framing. However, what now happens is that the lens does not project a big enough image circle to fill the FX frame -- no wonder, the Vltrox is a DX design -- however, what *is* projected is exactly the same in dimension as the image delivered by the FX-design of the Laowa. So again, the 9mm lenses do not change anything going from FX to DX or vice versa.

Stop believing the 'crop'/'multiplier' myth. It can only bring confusion.

[Hugh_3170]

Agreed.

For me this new lens is interesting:
https://www.nikon.dk/da_DK/product/lenses/mirrorless/nikkor-z-dx-mc-35mm-f1.7

...................................
 A road map for DX bodies would be nice.
...................................

[Ilkka Nissilä]

It's not like the usual 'Micro-"Nikkors of recent that all go to 1:1. This 35mm lens ends at 0.67X (0.67:1) however the blurb writers claim this is "equal to 1:1" for FX. Which is of course is utter nonsense. Nikon guys should know better than peddling such stupidity.

The 105mm f/2.8 MC Z goes straight to 1:1 and is an excellent performer. The shorter sibling 50mm f/2.8 MC is smaller and lighter, but according to reviews not in the same quality league. Plus it has a short working distance. The latter applies even more to the new 35mm f/1.7, meaning one cannot use a lens shade and lighting the subject might be tricky.

I think what they're getting at is that the 35 mm can fill the frame with the same size of subject as an FX camera user with a lens that goes to 1:1. Anyway, the working distance will be short, but with the f/1.7 maximum aperture it should serve as a nice "normal lens" with close-up capability on DX. I wouldn't necessarily use such a lens for dedicated close-up or macro subjects but e.g. when traveling a short lens with near-macro capabilities is useful and helps keep the bag weight down.

I really like it that Nikon is finally making a new fast DX standard zoom (16-50/2.8 ) and it's also with VR to compensate for the lack of in-camera VR in the Z DX cameras. I would have thought that it would be easier to implement in-camera VR than design new VR lenses within this focal range but at least the lens is reasonably priced and very light.

[Birna Rørslett]

The "same size" yet with lower magnification. Meaning less detail.

[MEPER]

What if the DX sensor has same pixel count as the FX sensor (let us say 24MP for both) and the "pixel quality" is equal?
Usually a lens with smaller "circle" has higher resolution?

The DX-lens also needs larger aperture to produce exact same "FX-image" (DOF)?

I know it is a bit "theoretical"......

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The "same size" yet with lower magnification. Meaning less detail.

Well, it's a budget lightweight option (220 g). High magnification photography usually requires focus stacking to make out more details than an ultra-thin sliver and this requires a tripod and time spent on the process during the photography and post-processing. I suspect most people stay away from the true macro range because of the greater difficulty of achieving success. Limiting to 0.67x simply excludes the range where stacking would be mandatory. In this range a longer working distance and greater focal length is usually needed as well. I usually use 85 PC-E for up to 1:2 and then go with the 200mm AF Micro for the higher magnifications (if I'm not using a bellows and dealing with the associated complications including weather sensitivity). A slightly lower maximum magnification in a very short macro normal is a sensible design choice IMO. Canon's RF 35 mm f/1.8 macro only goes to 1:2 so Nikon's improves upon this slightly.

[Birna Rørslett]

What if the DX sensor has same pixel count as the FX sensor (let us say 24MP for both) and the "pixel quality" is equal?
Usually a lens with smaller "circle" has higher resolution?

The DX-lens also needs larger aperture to produce exact same "FX-image" (DOF)?

I know it is a bit "theoretical"......

The salient point is what the lens delivers.  Pixel density if too high just leads to the danger of empty magnification. A phenomen which is far from theoretical.

I agree with all the practical the points mentioned by Ilkka, but that isn't what the discussion is about. "0.67x" can never be equal to "1X" no matter what you do.

[KarlMera]

A af-s 2,8 40mm micro, lifesize, 1:1, would be a good alternative

[Birna Rørslett]

Certainly a light weight item. However, although it's reportedly quite sharp, I never took a shine to it. The working distance is very short, AF hunts when the magnification approaches 1:1, and the manual focusing is simply awful being imprecise and jerky.

Moreover, it is f/2.8 (infinity) to f/3.8 (at 1:1).

[KarlMera]

Moreover, it is f/2.8 (infinity) to f/3.8 (at 1:1).

not bad