[JJ_SO]

The Zeiss is not only very sharp but delivers also a very exceptional contrast - so black will appear a big bit blacker in a Zeiss Image than in that of any other lens I've seen so far (which is not that much, really). And it's sometimes not easy to tell what's sharpness and what's contrast, what's detail and what's microcontrast? Oh, and by the way, to me it seems the new Canon 35/1.4 is just running through the competitor's rows to have a little chat  on top with Zeiss, very far away from the others.

 

I don't get the point in blowing up to 200% - what more can I see I can't see at 100%? 100% is what the sensor can deliver, more is pointless, I think? Am I wrong?

[Mihai]

K.What I 've understood is that the mobile samsung photos that appeared to my eyes was fake and now I know why,too much post processing.

But I still don't have the answer to my question.Which lens is the best for landscape photography? I am talking about wide , super wide lenses for full frame Canon and Sony cameras. Let's include here Canon,Zeiss, Sigma,Tamron and Samyang for Canon and the lenses for Sony. I am interested just about resolution ( details ) because the geometry,vignetting can be easily corrected.

Best regards!

[JJ_SO]

Honestly, I try to stay away from "best lens for..." I don't know them all and even if I did, I only could say "for my kind of pictures I feel this lens is the one I'm mostly happy with". Also, I don't think landscape in particular is so difficult to get HR from - use a good lens and stitch the results = lots of details at low costs.

 

Actually I'm looking forward to get a Sigma dp0 quattro which I like to take with me next time I go to Wales. I like those little Sigmas since I discovered them. Couple of downsides, but lack of detail, sharpness and colors are not amongst them.