09-30-2010, 08:43 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285828513' post='3382']
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.
[/quote]
can you explain about the worse shallow depth-of-field potential?? i am not really understand that...
why dont you review the Z35/2.8??
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.
[/quote]
can you explain about the worse shallow depth-of-field potential?? i am not really understand that...
why dont you review the Z35/2.8??