[Aristophanes]

But on aps-c a 35/1.4 would make a nice parallell to the 50/1.4 on FF, allthough it wouldn't give the exact same DOF, I guess. I miss a nice, fast, compact, normal prime for aps-c in the lens lineup.

35/1.4 cannot be compact. Ask Sigma. It's just optical physics.

Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM review: Digital Photography Review

[Alizarine]

24mm wants = this: Nikon 24mm f/1.4
Big, big filter, $$$$$$$$$$$$$ Kind of silly for the DA series, but not FF. For APS-C the DA's 15mm and 21mm are perfect. Too fast and they get big an bulky and with WA the whole bokeh thing is less interesting and necessary.

Haha I've seen this one firsthand in a local Nikon store in a mall. The thing is huge, almost the size of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (which is significantly bigger than the kit lens), even without a hood.

[deus ursus]

35/1.4 cannot be compact. Ask Sigma. It's just optical physics.

Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM review: Digital Photography Review

Yeah, I know. It was just wishfull thinking. So, what would be more compact? (1)A ff dslr with a 50/1.4, or (2) an aps-c dslr with a 35/1.4? Or to put it this way: Can Pentax produce a ff dslr that would make alternative 1 above more compact than alternative 2?

[Digitalis]

what would be more compact? (1)A ff dslr with a 50/1.4, or (2) an aps-c dslr with a 35/1.4? Or to put it this way: Can Pentax produce a ff dslr that would make alternative 1 above more compact than alternative 2?

Depends if the 35mm f/1.4 lens on the APS-C format camera was designed with a smaller image circle to cover the format and nothing bigger, the two cameras would probably still occupy the same volume all things being equal (when comparing FX to DX format things never really are equal)

[goubejp]

But on aps-c a 35/1.4 would make a nice parallell to the 50/1.4 on FF, allthough it wouldn't give the exact same DOF, I guess. I miss a nice, fast, compact, normal prime for aps-c in the lens lineup.

There is the new sigma 35 f1.4... forget a compact 35 f1.4, it will anyway a complex optical design. Only 50 mm primes allows for reasonable compact design

[wkraus]

35/1.4 cannot be compact. Ask Sigma. It's just optical physics.

Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM review: Digital Photography Review

Have you seen the Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 R for APS-C? 65x55mm, 187 grams, 52mm filters - nothing to worry about. And apparently a very nice lens.

[goubejp]

Haha I've seen this one firsthand in a local Nikon store in a mall. The thing is huge, almost the size of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (which is significantly bigger than the kit lens), even without a hood.

And the photozone review on DX format gives mixed results...

[gazonk]

Have you seen the Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 R for APS-C? 65x55mm, 187 grams, 52mm filters - nothing to worry about. And apparently a very nice lens.

That's the advantage of a shorter register distance - I assume that 35mm is not a retrofocus design?

[wkraus]

That's the advantage of a shorter register distance - I assume that 35mm is not a retrofocus design?

Well, of course that's true. Nevertheless an APS-C only lens can be built much smaller.

[Mistral75]

That's the advantage of a shorter register distance - I assume that 35mm is not a retrofocus design?

Indeed, it's a double Gauss formula, like (almost) all lenses whose focal length is a bit bigger than both their image circle and register distance.

[Aristophanes]

Have you seen the Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 R for APS-C? 65x55mm, 187 grams, 52mm filters - nothing to worry about. And apparently a very nice lens.

Yes. not an SLR lens, but an RF lens. Closer to the sensor (film plane) with no mirror and the telecentricity is ameliorated.

You gain the compactness and relative WA aspects but lose the SLR TTL, long lens, zoom lens, macro flexibility, OVF.

The SLR format has a major market advantage: it's incredibly flexible. It loses some on compactness (though the X-Pro is quite a big beast) and WA lenses get big, but long zooms relatively small. Macro work is unparalleled in the SLR format.

[gazonk]

The SLR format has a major market advantage: it's incredibly flexible. It loses some on compactness (though the X-Pro is quite a big beast) and WA lenses get big, but long zooms relatively small. Macro work is unparalleled in the SLR format.

Besides, maybe retrofocus lenses are actually a good match for digital? For instance, I read the photozone.de test of the Fuji 35/1.4, and I must say I'm puzzled by the difference between center and edge sharpness, even at f/4. The Pentax DA35/2.4 is much more consistent across the frame.

[wkraus]

Just another thought concerning optical physics: compare the size of my two analog era 28mm lenses (FA 28mm/2.8 AL and 28mm/3,5 Shift). On film I was under the impression that the FA lens actually is a lot sharper (but I did not "grain-peep" then and I don't use both of them much on APS-C digital). The size of the shift lens is mostly not due to the shift mechanism (it's all glass inside the barrel) but to the larger image circle.

[Anvh]

Besides, maybe retrofocus lenses are actually a good match for digital? For instance, I read the photozone.de test of the Fuji 35/1.4, and I must say I'm puzzled by the difference between center and edge sharpness, even at f/4. The Pentax DA35/2.4 is much more consistent across the frame.

That's the problem with short register and digital sensor, the light needs to fall on the sensor as straight as possible, so with a short register the angle in the corners is getting to steep.

[gazonk]

That's the problem with short register and digital sensor, the light needs to fall on the sensor as straight as possible, so with a short register the angle in the corners is getting to steep.

Exactly. Olympus was right with the telecentricity of 4/3 after all :-) So maybe APS-C with full SLR register distance and retrofocus normal-to-wide lenses still has some virtues...