12-12-2011, 11:20 PM
[quote name='Marc' timestamp='1323698264' post='13660']
The 20mm/2.8 worked well because film was less demanding. But even on film it was not great wide open...
Same with the AF 35mm/2D. That was never a really good lens.
[/quote]
Surely true if you demand that they be good wide open, but I personally don"t use a 20 or a 35 that much wide open and as of 5.6, both those lenses work very well for landscape, architecture, etc. Are there better lenses, surely but at 3 or 4 times the price and then the old calculator starts ticking....! How much is enough?
The 20mm/2.8 worked well because film was less demanding. But even on film it was not great wide open...
Same with the AF 35mm/2D. That was never a really good lens.
[/quote]
Surely true if you demand that they be good wide open, but I personally don"t use a 20 or a 35 that much wide open and as of 5.6, both those lenses work very well for landscape, architecture, etc. Are there better lenses, surely but at 3 or 4 times the price and then the old calculator starts ticking....! How much is enough?