11-10-2010, 08:18 AM
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1289360415' post='4075']
People are quite quick to misunderstand the purpose of ultra fast lenses. We never shoot IQ critical shots (e.g. landscapes) at f/1.4 or even at f/2.8. With fast apertures, it makes sense only to shoot near by subjects for shallow DOF. The differences in the resolution/blur between the in-focus and out of focus areas is so high that we perceive even very soft lenses as being very sharp. Also the spatial area of the image that is actually in focus is very tiny, making edge-to-edge resolution figures almost insignificant. It's only if you keep the two shots side by side you'll notice differences. Even then, it's not fair because shots with more DOF always look sharper because of that increased area that's in focus.
[/quote]
Agreed... with some reservations: Concerning the landscape shots, 14-24mm shows better sharpness than this one between f/8 - 11 and it is much more affordable with a decent zoom range. So I think beyond f/4 choosing this prime lens over 14-24mm (or 17-35mm) for landscape photography doesn't seem to be reasonable. OTOH, background blur and softness on the edges are mostly distinguishable -and not only for this lens- (check the second image Markus posted).
All in all, it is really a tempting beauty... I don't want to be misunderstood, it's a state of art in it's kind. Has a very beautiful bokeh for a wide angle lens and excellent center resolution @f/4. But I have difficulties in putting it into a class of lens usage where I can say "ok it fits here properly". The field samples Markus posted were giving a clue, but guys, it costs more than 2.000$...
Kind regards,
Serkan
People are quite quick to misunderstand the purpose of ultra fast lenses. We never shoot IQ critical shots (e.g. landscapes) at f/1.4 or even at f/2.8. With fast apertures, it makes sense only to shoot near by subjects for shallow DOF. The differences in the resolution/blur between the in-focus and out of focus areas is so high that we perceive even very soft lenses as being very sharp. Also the spatial area of the image that is actually in focus is very tiny, making edge-to-edge resolution figures almost insignificant. It's only if you keep the two shots side by side you'll notice differences. Even then, it's not fair because shots with more DOF always look sharper because of that increased area that's in focus.
[/quote]
Agreed... with some reservations: Concerning the landscape shots, 14-24mm shows better sharpness than this one between f/8 - 11 and it is much more affordable with a decent zoom range. So I think beyond f/4 choosing this prime lens over 14-24mm (or 17-35mm) for landscape photography doesn't seem to be reasonable. OTOH, background blur and softness on the edges are mostly distinguishable -and not only for this lens- (check the second image Markus posted).
All in all, it is really a tempting beauty... I don't want to be misunderstood, it's a state of art in it's kind. Has a very beautiful bokeh for a wide angle lens and excellent center resolution @f/4. But I have difficulties in putting it into a class of lens usage where I can say "ok it fits here properly". The field samples Markus posted were giving a clue, but guys, it costs more than 2.000$...
Kind regards,
Serkan