Jeffrey wrote:
So, how many photographers here actually shoot their lenses wide open often? I know the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 is one stop of speed. For reference, I am primarily a landscape, architecture and nature shooter. I never work near the wide open end. If, like many folks I know, I generally shoot above f5.6, why would I care if my lens is f1.4 of f2.0? BTW, when I do shoot wildlife, I am often wide open, so I understand the need there, bit I don't consider this lens a wildlife lens.
I do. I almost exclusively shoot my 35L in the 1.4-2.2 range. If you're looking for a f5.6 or f8 lens go with the cheaper ones - most lenses look more or less the same at f8.
Plus, shooting at 2.0 on a 1.4 lens is one stop down, which presumably gets you better resolution than might a 2.0 lens shot wide open.
jianghai_ho wrote:
most lenses look more or less the same at f8.
I respectfully disagree. This applies to some of the criteria that differentiate lenses, such as wide-open softness, but defintely not all, including drawing style, rendition of colour and contrast, resistance to flare, CA, distortion...
Thanks, Philber! I didn't want to believe that the reason for putting out the dough for my 21 ZE was not wasted, as I currently use the Canon 16-35L II. Remember I am usually in the f8 to f20 range. Shouldn't the ZE outperform there, too?
Sam N wrote:
Would those algorithms even work for non-Nikon lenses?
Yes, they work quite well with non-Nikon lenses. You have to use CaptureNX to process the RAW files if you want CA reduction though, it's metadata in the RAW's.
Jeffrey, look at the photozone review linked in this thread. You will see that most of the problems don't just "go away" when a lens is stopped down, though some do, principally softness. Plus, its character (the way it draws, or renders colour and contrast) remains at smaller apertures. So, no worries, what makes the 21 a great lens (IMHO) is as valid at f:11 as it is at f:4. Its primary use is for landscapes, and most landscape shots are stopped down. So if the member's opinion was correct, any lens would do for landscape, and there would be no justification, and no market for expensive landscape lenses.
