Worldinlens wrote: RustyBug wrote: rscheffler wrote:
It\'s kind of pointless to buy a $1300 ZM21/2.8 only to shoot it at f/8 or greater, IMO.
+1 @ this ^
Many people buying and more expensive UWA Zeiss lenses for landscapes and use f/5.6-16 in fact.
But not so they can then contend with smearing, vignetting and color shifts. Canon\'s 17L & 24L II TS-E\'s also cost more than the ZM and get used in that range, but the larger image circle and different angles of incidence yield an IQ that isn\'t nearly as challenged / compromised by the steep angles of rangefinder UWA glass.
If your goal is truly landscape quality IQ, then I don\'t really see the concept of using high dollar UWA rangefinder glass to get \"pretty good\" corners really viable so you can correct vignetting, color shift and smearing additionally in post.
$$$ for Zeiss UWA SLR or TS-E glass to get your landscape quality makes more sense for me when it comes to UWA. The wider you go, the tougher it gets ... choose your poison @ size/weight vs. IQ. Why put a compromised/uber-challenged optical projection on the \"latest & greatest\" FF sensor if your goal is IQ? Yes, it\'s cool that rangefinder glass is now useable on FF, but I\'d relegate that to the normal/longer focal lengths or even moderate WA (i.e. 35mm), but not the UWA\'s.
FF is the same size @ mirrorless as it is for SLR ... the math for the optical projection still has to project a given FOV onto the same area. The closer you put your rear element to your sensor, the steeper/more challenging the compromises become.
Having a FF mirrorless camera (vs. SLR) changes nothing regarding optical projection challenges of projecting a 100 degree FOV onto a 24mm x 36mm area. Rangefinder glass is going to be more challenged by its closer proximity to the sensor than that of SLR or TS-E lenses.
Oct 20, 2013 at 11:26 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11877546 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
