Upload & Sell: On
Foto Dude wrote:
I see. If you had used any aperture higher than 2.8, that would force your shutter to stay open longer, and in-term the stars would be more fuzzy. Am I correct?
Exactly... the stars would start forming trails. Some people like star trails, but I hate them.
Wow, stunning shots! But they were all between f/8 and f/11, which kind of goes to the OP's point why isn't there a lighter and slower version of this lens for landscapes.
Steve, correct me if I am wrong, but if you had to shoot that first shot without the aid of an Astro-Tracker and composite blend, you'd probably prefer to shoot at f/2.8.
It is not particularly well suited to landscape because if its weight and the fact that it doesn't accept filters. The 16-35 is a better choice of you're concerned about weight, or cost, or filters, etc... I guarantee you nobody is going to be able to tell just looking at your photos whether they were taken with the 16-35 versus the 14-24. This is an exercise for the gearheads, not the photographers (I can talk about them that way because I am one )...
Furthermore, it is likely the number one amateur mistake of budding landscape photographers, to want to zoom...Show more →
I could not disagree with you more re: the 14-24. It isn't just about getting "everything in." The extreme perspective at 14mm can make a scene interesting, and permit some otherwise unavailable foreground compositions. Obviously a 70-200 has its place in a landscape shooter's kit, but it doesn't obviate the benefits of a 14-24. I also completely reject your implication that you need a long lens to develop "intimate" compositions; you can get pretty darn intimate with your subject through a 14-24.