09-30-2010, 06:35 AM
[quote name='neolam' timestamp='1285774913' post='3365']
and i found out the C Biogon does have better image quality....so guys u recommend me to go for which lens??
[/quote]
It's mostly a matter of speed, isn't it ?
If you don't require f/2 why pay the bucks for the speed potential ? Slow speed lenses (I'm talking of f/2.8 here) are usually better than faster lenses which are simply much more difficult to design and affected by compromises. Technically the V35/1.2 or V35/1.4 will not be as good as a Z35/2.8 for sure.
However, a 35mm f/2.8 does have a worse shallow depth-of-field potential.
Without having tested the Z35/2.8 I'd say that the Z35/2 is the best compromise in terms of performance and depth-of-field potential on a APS-C camera.
and i found out the C Biogon does have better image quality....so guys u recommend me to go for which lens??
[/quote]
It's mostly a matter of speed, isn't it ?
If you don't require f/2 why pay the bucks for the speed potential ? Slow speed lenses (I'm talking of f/2.8 here) are usually better than faster lenses which are simply much more difficult to design and affected by compromises. Technically the V35/1.2 or V35/1.4 will not be as good as a Z35/2.8 for sure.
However, a 35mm f/2.8 does have a worse shallow depth-of-field potential.
Without having tested the Z35/2.8 I'd say that the Z35/2 is the best compromise in terms of performance and depth-of-field potential on a APS-C camera.