Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
The 35 is a bit thinner, about same length as the Sigma Art version, yes - so not smaller. But a lot lighter: 358 to 659 grams. I don't think they could become much smaller, and I don't want that - for some Fuji lenses (like the f/2.0 versions) I don't save much space in my bag - the bags are made for normal sized lenses, smaller lenses just mean more air in the bag. Especially when one lens is ø 43 and the other 62 mm.
And speaking of wide angle zooms: I know somebody who exchanged his 14/2.8 for the 10-24/4, and now he bought the 14/2.8 again because it's better. The Nikkor Z 14-30 will eat the Fuji zoom for breakfast, even if it's only for more details for the bigger sensor. Here's where I see so much more in the Nikkor pictures than in the Fuji's, although the lenses are very good.
Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
Would I pollute my beautiful Nikon with Canon glass? yuk. And get reminded every time I use it that the genial second ring is useless on a Nikon? And no one in Nikon's design department had a similar clever idea to come up with? No, I don't think so.