snowblind-2 wrote:
I never missed your point Dan. You just can't seem to grasp mine.
Go back and read more carefully and you might get it.
"... frequently don't even bring a tripod when I have it mounted."
"I am saying that there is no connection between its sharpness and a decision to not use a tripod!
If anything, having a sharper lens is a reason TO use the tripod..."
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'll try one more time. Apparently just asking you to go back and look won't do it, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt a painstaking explanation...
I was responding to this point in that post about the sharpness of the lens for landscape photography:
My response was directed to the point that the sharpness of the lens would be related to a decision about whether to use it off the tripod for landscape photography or not. (E.g. — If sharpness is your issue, and you got a lens specifically because it is super-sharp, you will lose that benefit if you take it off the tripod regardless of whether it has a large maximum aperture or not. And the sharpness of a lens is unrelated to the decision about using it off the tripod or handheld.)
So, regarding the notion that there is a relationship between a lens being "bitting" sharp (at whatever aperture) and the ability to use it off tripod I wrote:
I could also have pointed out just how unusual it is to shoot landscapes at f/1.4 — not unheard of, but extremely rare, for a variety of reasons.
I'm sure the 18mm lens is an excellent lens, based on everything I've read about it.
