Timeline for Is the Nikon 35mm 2.0 worth the extra money over the 1.8?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2010 at 16:33 | comment | added | Reid | Keep in mind that even $400 at some unspecified future date isn't a whole lot of money when compared with the necessary investment for FF. You may also be interested in this question w.r.t. DX vs. FX: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/840/dx-or-fx-lenses | |
| Aug 13, 2010 at 16:15 | comment | added | newfie_coder | I have no immediate plans to go full-frame, but i'd like to one day. depends on if I start making money from photography or if it remains a 'non-paying' hobby. | |
| Aug 13, 2010 at 15:19 | comment | added | Reid | +1. Here's Thom Hogan on the f/2, including a comparison with the f/1.8: bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-D-lensreview.htm | |
| Aug 13, 2010 at 15:06 | history | answered | chills42 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |