Forum indexMicro Four Thirds TalkChange forum

The 12-35 mm for landscape.

Started 4 months ago | Discussion thread

Forum

Shirozina

Regular Member • Posts: 129

Like?

Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.

In reply to grampaeddy, 3 months ago

grampaeddy wrote:

Best landscapes need best resolution, 2.8 is not giving you what 5.6 will. The first sentence said for landscapes not artsy bokeh shots without detail. And, good landscapes usually mean tripod, slower shutter speeds (barring wind) and an f-stop thart yields detail.

Can the 12-35 be stopped down to 5.6?

Reply Reply with quote Complain

Post (hide subjects)	Posted by	When
The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago	4
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	ravinj	4 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	ravinj	4 months ago	4
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago	5
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Pic Man	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	amtberg	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	inasir1971	4 months ago
So......where are these pics?	RealPancho	4 months ago	2
Here are a few.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: Here are a few.	RealPancho	4 months ago
And here's one with sharpening	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	amtberg	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Starred	4 months ago	1
Would love to see those in full size.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Would love to see those in full size.	Starred	4 months ago
Unfortunately we have no access to original size.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Unfortunately we have no access to original size.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	dgnelson	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Ron Outdoors	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Ron Outdoors	4 months ago
Would love to see these in full size.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Would love to see these in full size.	Ron Outdoors	4 months ago
Don't understand it either but we really cannot see the originals.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Don't understand it either but we really cannot see the originals.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	4 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	RealPancho	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	RealPancho	4 months ago
Sigh I get so bored.....	papillon_65	4 months ago	8
Amen (nt)	gollywop	4 months ago	1
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	Bob Tullis	4 months ago	1
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	papillon_65	4 months ago
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	Bob Tullis	4 months ago
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	papillon_65	4 months ago
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	RealPancho	4 months ago	1
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	Chuck Eklund	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gtravis	4 months ago
Purple fringing alert!	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	gtravis	4 months ago	1
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Bob Tullis	4 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Shirozina	4 months ago	1
Not every lens does this!	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Not every lens does this!	RealPancho	4 months ago	1
PF can be hard to remove in post, whereas CA is easy.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: PF can be hard to remove in post, whereas CA is easy.	RealPancho	3 months ago
Frank, here's a try.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: PF can be hard to remove in post, whereas CA is easy.	secretworld	3 months ago
Re: Not every lens does this!	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: Not every lens does this!	Anders W	4 months ago	1
Re: Not every lens does this!	gollywop	3 months ago
Again, PF is not CA.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	Anders W	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	gollywop	3 months ago
Thanks a lot! That seems to actually work reasonably well.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Thanks a lot! That seems to actually work reasonably well.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	Anders W	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	astone	3 months ago
Yep that is PF allright.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Moonman52	3 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
THIS IS HORRIBLE!	RealPancho	3 months ago
The fix actually isn't that easy...	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: The fix actually isn't that easy...	RealPancho	3 months ago
I have quite a bit of experience with this problem...	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Of course, you're right	RealPancho	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago	1
Good stuff, Golly	Hen3ry	4 months ago	1
Re: Good stuff, Golly	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: Good stuff, Golly	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago	1
You speakin' ta me?	dcassat	4 months ago	1
Re: You speakin' ta me?	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago	1
Re: You speakin' ta me?	ADSinger	4 months ago
Re: You speakin' ta me?	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Big Ga	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Big Ga	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Big Ga	3 months ago
Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	sigala1	3 months ago	1
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Moonman52	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Moonman52	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	gollywop	3 months ago
Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	Hen3ry	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	sigala1	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	amtberg	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	String	3 months ago
No one said one did, Saddle Burr.	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Big Ga	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Shirozina	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Dawindyk	3 months ago
Is the 12-35 suitable for cat-scapes?	bluelemmy	3 months ago
Ther answer to edge softness is HERE...	Hen3ry	3 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	grampaeddy	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Shirozina	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	grampaeddy	3 months ago
FWIW, snapshot 'scapes w/7-14, 9-18, 12-35	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: FWIW, snapshot 'scapes w/7-14, 9-18, 12-35	gollywop	3 months ago

Keyboard shortcuts:

FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads

Color scheme? Blue / Yellow

Editorial content

Product database

Community

Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering	103
Am I the only one who doesn't care about video ...	70
Why Canon Made 1Dx Best Specification , Low ...	59
Full Frame Pentax mystery deepens....	44
Local area for Play	39
Advise for a walk around lens for K5?	37
Received my Nikon 300mm F4 today	37
EP5 or OMD EM5 (Ignoring Price) For Beginner?	32
So... I'm all but convinced that I'm going D800	31
Olympus 2012 imaging financial results	31
NX300 & NX2000 source code	31
V1 - Deal of the Century!	31
How many of you guys have a back up camera?	30
Do have canon A better cheap lens instead of ...	29
shooting raw	26
Suggestions for small camera - Fujifilm X20 or ?	26
Olympus financial results for 2012 fiscal year	25
Has this photo lost all hope?	24
A Year with the OM-D E-M5	24
First photos with 9-18mm	24