Upload & Sell: On
| p.2 #12 · ~$950 for landscape + walk around FX lens |
I do not agree: Of course the corners matters, but so do the center, and there is a long way up to the 14-24:
It is better to compare the 35mm f/2.0 and at f. 8 as I presume you would use on scapes, I have a hard time to understand why it should be not so steller as the 20mm and 24 mm, the difference is minor - better in the center and nearly equal in the corners.
At wider apertures the 35mm f/2.0 is not as good in the corners = Agree
I doubt anyone who believes the 35/2D to be inadequate would have much interest in any of the 20mm or 24mm Nikon primes, other than the exceptional 24/1.4g. They've all got their charms (portability is an obvious benefit, and the flare resistance of the 20/3.5 AIS is especially nice), but none are as good as the 35/2D. Yes, the 35 takes a few stops to bring the corners in, but there's nothing surprising about that, and it's still much more consistent across the frame than the older 20/24 options.
The older 20mm and 24mm primes can't match the 16-35, either. The zoom is at its best at those focal lengths, and the only lenses that are better are the 14-24/2.8 and the 24/1.4g.