philber wrote:
Lovely shot, Jeffrey! Positively lovely. Actually, the fact that 100% crops of the 16-35 look blurry probably doesn\'t matter a bit in real life, where nobody prints 100% crops of corners anyhow.
More important matters IMHO are rendition of colour and contrast, CA, distortion. All of which only if they are \"bad\" enough that they can be seen on a print.
+1 I\'m trying to avoid fanboyism here but, everybody loves to jump on the 16-35L2 hate band wagon. I do agree that it\'s not perfect and the 21 distagon looks very impressive but, the fact is that a lot of fine art prints as well as a lot of other photography has been done successfully with it. IMHO, if all you need is 21mm and MF works for you, then look no further than the Distagon. However, 16-35L2 adds a lot of versatility and AF for about the same price and most of the differences aren\'t noticeable in print.
Nov 18, 2009 at 06:57 PM
Previous versions of dancam's message #7792465 « ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples »
