Mohun Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I suspect we're up against the physics of wide-angle lenses, the more wide-angle the more appaent distortion. Because of the mirror box/SLR,DSLR design, wide-angle lenses generally have to be of retroficus design; however, I don't believe that the traditional wide-angle design for lenses for rangefinder camera bodies, e.g., Leica is significantly less distorting than retrofocus designed lenses for SLR/DSLRs. The wider the angle, the more distortion is likely, especially if the focus, so to speak, is on images that contain vertical elements, i.e., architecture. These distortion issues may be mitigated to greater or lesser extents by use of a good PC lens or in post if RAW shooting is involved. Of course, landscape work, which may include few relatively close vertical elements may not need much if any distortion control.
It seems to me that sufficient depth of field will often be far more important in most architectural and/or landscape images than bokeh. Most images will be made stopped down in the range of f/8 to f/16 (or the point where diffraction noticable "unsharpness" softens the image, so very fast (say f/1.2 to f/2) lenses won't bring much to the table; however, there are some whose needs include more than a few after-dark images and I understand faster lenses will have their uses there, particularly where tripod use is precluded.
While I recognize that the 14-24 is the very expensive flagship of the Nikkors, and I don't own one and have never shot with one, I suspect that the laws of physics and optics may require a bit of distortion correction for all but landscape shots with that excellent, but very special lens.
|