Heated debate about 17mm/1.8

Started Sep 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Grobb
Senior MemberPosts: 1,229Gear list
Like?
Get both lenses?!
In reply to honeyiscool, Sep 4, 2013

honeyiscool wrote:

Yeah, I think the 17mm f/1.8 is ideal for low-light action, and anyone who uses it for people, pets, kids, etc., they seem to love it. Those who use it for brick walls, landscapes, and still life seem to be less than impressed. Interestingly enough, I think the 20mm f/1.7 have exactly the opposite strengths and weaknesses, which IMO is a great thing as they complement each other perfectly.

That is a great way of summing things up, but getting 2 lenses of the same FOV in order to have them do what they should do in the first place, is ridiculous IMO! It's hard to believe that a company would make a lens that excels at most of what it should and fail in other areas so badly. It's almost like they are trying to build in compromises into lenses. It's not only the 17mm that is made to excel at most of what it is designed to do, but has just enough quirks to aggravate the poor customers who pays so much money for them. It seems like companies would do enough thorough testing and improve the aspects of a lens that needs to be improved before mass producing them. Nobody should have to buy two (2) lenses of the same FOV in order to "complement" another lens of the same FOV just to be happy and satisfied with it! I've read people say (when others complain about extreme limitations in most lens), "just pick the compromises you can live with", THAT is a crock of you know what!

-- hide signature --

Growing old is inevitable, Growing up is optional!

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