DX vs FX lenses question

Clint_001

Clint_001

Clint_001

Associate
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Posts
37
Quite new to this so apologies if this is a stupid question. I'm trying to compare the Nikon 35mm f/1.8g DX and 50mm f/1.8g FX for a d3200. I've got my head around the implications in terms of effective focal length but am wondering if this effects aperture size. Although the physical apeture of the FX lense would still be 50/1.8, does it have an effective aperture you should use when comparing to DX lenses on a DX body?

Really this comes down to the fact that although I'm only just starting out, I'm finding I really enjoy low light stuff. I've just started an 8 week evening class and won't make a decision until I've finished that and also got a lot more hours under my belt with the supplied 18-55mm lenses, however I do find myself wishing for lower f numbers when I'm using it.

Any advice much appreciated.
 
Thanks for your reply. Yes I understand you can use an FX on a DX body. I was really looking for some input on comparing the low light capability of the two. As I understand it a 50mm lenses with the same f number as a 35mm lenses would have a larger physical aperture. I'm making the leap to then assume the 50mm would be better for low light (not sure this is true). If that's true of an FX lense vs FX lense comparison can the same be said of an FX vs DX lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom