12-35 unimpressive as a landscape lens

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Shirozina
Regular MemberPosts: 130
Like?
Re: Why bother?
In reply to String, 5 months ago

String wrote:

Shirozina wrote:

String wrote:

Shirozina wrote:

String wrote:

Why bother purchasing a constant f2.8 if you're only shooting at f8 with it anyway? Seems kinda obvious to me but whatever...

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

because higher quality lenses perform better at all apertures in my experience.

And primes perform better than zooms in my experiance so why bother with a zoom? The 12-35 is a pretty easy range to cover with primes for landscape use in the m43 world.

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

You really need an explanation of the advantages of zooms over primes?

I'm just confused as to why you are not happy with the 12-35. You seem to be looking for great image quality in a lens and feel that the kit lens is better... But unwilling to go to 2-3 primes and use your feet for a few steps? You have to decide if you want the best image quality or convenience.

Im perfectly happy with the images out of the 12-35 however I'm also using (almost exclusively) at f4 or wider.

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

I was expecting more from an expensive lens - is it too much to ask that the optical performance  is at least equal to the kit lens in this area?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow