12-13-2011, 08:51 AM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1323732025' post='13676']
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?
[/quote]
Understandable that you do not use them wide open. However, the OP, in his first post, specifically is talking about the need to shoot with big apertures at times.
The MF Nikkors are not 3 to 4 times the price, nor is the 35mm f1.4 from Samyang, nor the 20mm f3.5 from Voigtlander or the 24mm f1.8 from Sigma.
There is a bit more choice, each with their own plusses and minuses.
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?
[/quote]
Understandable that you do not use them wide open. However, the OP, in his first post, specifically is talking about the need to shoot with big apertures at times.
The MF Nikkors are not 3 to 4 times the price, nor is the 35mm f1.4 from Samyang, nor the 20mm f3.5 from Voigtlander or the 24mm f1.8 from Sigma.
There is a bit more choice, each with their own plusses and minuses.