Scott Stoness Online Upload & Sell: On
|
darbo wrote:
Scott, if you didn't already own the Zeiss 15mm, would you still go with the Zeiss or choose the 11-24mm? I'm not sure I need f/2.8. I love Zeiss lenses and the 15mm has long been on my list, but if the 11-24mm is nearly the equal of the 15mm it's tough not to go with the extra functionality of the zoom. Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.
David
It would be a tough choice. I have the TS17 which is my go to lens for landscape to correct lean. No other lens does this. The 11-24 or 16-35, off level results in bowed trees particularly on edges.
So for me the 11-24 or 16-35 or zeiss 15/2.8 is purchased to complement the TS17.
I chose the zeiss because at night, f2.8 permits 1/2 the shutter speed, taking me from iso 3200 to iso 1600 which is a big deal. I also chose the zeiss 15/2.8 because it has a hard stop at infinity and this makes it easy to focus in the dark.
I would certainly buy the 11-24 over the 16-35/f4, because its more complementary for the ts17. Wider and the range from 24-36 is not a typical range. However, I believe the 11-24 will not have as nice sun stars as 11-24 because of even vs odd blades.
The short answer is I need all three - 11-24 for zoom versatility but recognizing the leaning problem. Zeiss for milky way/aurora for f2.8. And ts17 for most use. And I would dispense with 16-35f4.
But If I had to choose just 2 - it would be zeiss and ts17 because they are more complementary for what I do and its difficult to carry it all.
But if I did not shoot at night, it would be 11-24 and ts17.
|