08-25-2010, 04:19 PM
[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1282748313' post='2158']
Yes, this was my main point/question. Actually my most-used/favourite lens on film was my SMC-K 24/2.8 (which was still small but not SMC-M 20/4 pancake small and since the NEX 16/2.8 is equivalent to a FF 24/4 that's why I compared it to the M20/4) and it was better than "good enough" for me. So, relative to our film reference, I wonder how bad the flaws of the NEX 16mm (on APS-C) or the VL20/3.5 (on FF) are. Until the time that "normal" wide-angles such 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 on FF results are available on PZ, it's hard to interpret the other wide-angles.
[/quote]
I do know someone who used the 28 F/2.8 on the 5D classic, with very good results. Because of the backpack travelling he did and does, including mountain treks (Himalayans amongst others), he needed a light set, but did want a FF camera, and had a limited budget. He ended up with a 28 F/2.8 and a 50 F/1.8 Mk I (more sturdy than the Mk II). So far, he has been very happy with those, and this set has served him very well, with very, very good results (actually, stunning is the word).
I haven't used these two on a 5D II, but I do expect similar results are possible.
In the end, it really is about the photographer, the gear is secondary. Good or expensive gear helps, but good gear doesn't make a better photographer anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.
Kind regards, Wim
Yes, this was my main point/question. Actually my most-used/favourite lens on film was my SMC-K 24/2.8 (which was still small but not SMC-M 20/4 pancake small and since the NEX 16/2.8 is equivalent to a FF 24/4 that's why I compared it to the M20/4) and it was better than "good enough" for me. So, relative to our film reference, I wonder how bad the flaws of the NEX 16mm (on APS-C) or the VL20/3.5 (on FF) are. Until the time that "normal" wide-angles such 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 on FF results are available on PZ, it's hard to interpret the other wide-angles.
[/quote]
I do know someone who used the 28 F/2.8 on the 5D classic, with very good results. Because of the backpack travelling he did and does, including mountain treks (Himalayans amongst others), he needed a light set, but did want a FF camera, and had a limited budget. He ended up with a 28 F/2.8 and a 50 F/1.8 Mk I (more sturdy than the Mk II). So far, he has been very happy with those, and this set has served him very well, with very, very good results (actually, stunning is the word).
I haven't used these two on a 5D II, but I do expect similar results are possible.
In the end, it really is about the photographer, the gear is secondary. Good or expensive gear helps, but good gear doesn't make a better photographer anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....