The 12-35 mm for landscape.

Started Jan 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shirozina Regular Member • Posts: 466
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape

Big Ga wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

You don't need an f/2.8 lens for landscape, so you are paying for a feature you don't need.

Indeed. But where your theory falls down in real life, is that the f2.8 lenses tend to have overall better optical quality at ALL apertures than slower lenses, as these tend to be made to lesser standards.

(this isn't always the case, but its true most of the time)

The ideal landscape lens from a specs standpoint is the 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3.

which proves my point. The 12-50 should indeed be a far more useful landscape lens than the 12-35. but it isn't, because its optically not as good, even though it could have been if olympus had chosen to make it so (and of course charge a heftier cost)

Landscape lens - something that's sharp from corner to center at long focusing distances ( infinity) . Doesn't matter what aperture it is or what focal length range it covers as some people like to shoot landscapes with longer focal lengths and some with shorter. Following on from the thread I started - my copy seems to be faulty as it's soft at the edges and corners at wide settings ( at all apertures) so for what I bought it for it's a fail. Nevermind it's 2.8 aperture - it's a top of the range m4/3 lens that performs ( my copy) worse than my 2 14-45 kit lenses. I'm in contact with the supplier for a replacement or calibration (although I am expecting 'within manufactures tolerance' to be their answer:-x. I've downloaded another users image sample which doesn't  show these problems and it looks to me like a superb lens the performance of which I would expect at this price.

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