Don't wanna comment on the skills of TS's friend, but I've seen numerous shots of landscape taken with 85mm 1.4G. Not a surprise to me if someone's using 2.8. In the end, it's just about creativity
Owning expensive pots and pans does not make one person a chef. This is what I always remind myself of and to curb the BBB virus.
I thought the reason of TS's friend shooting at f2.8 for landscape was rather hilarous. There is nothing technical about it and just for the sake of a higher ROI for the money spent on the L lens. As far as pure landscape is concerned, we want everything to be in focus. That's why we talk about hyperfocal focusing and there is really no reason to shoot at f2.8.
If we are talking about taking the right picture and the right to take picture, of cos the person has his/her right to shoot at f2.8 but definitely he/she is not taking the right picture. What a waste of the L lens...
Thanks for all responses...
The shooting start around 3pm, and ends about 5pm, no tripod involvement
I forward him the link of this thread, and his 1st response is I'm not mentioning both body and lens is mk II
Let's see his reaction next
(Ah Boy, peace, no offence!)
400D(RIP) | 50D | Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 | Sigma 24-70 F2.8 HSM | Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM | NEX 5N+18-55
Honestly speaking, to me, words can't describe how important is a fast lens for cityscapes, especially overseas. Primary reason is because I like to shoot at night without a tripod. And when it comes to the night, EVERY 1/3 stop of light matters.
Personally, I feel that shallow depth of field can be sometimes useful for landscape. Some extreme lenses like 85 f1.2L still soften the background noticeably yet slightly towards infinity (when focusing at a point near-infinity) and it can be very, very beautiful.
When this effect is not apparent in shorter lenses like the N24 f1.4G, you can exploit the new fantastic optics to get almost coma-less images at f1.4. Thats 2 stops faster than using the usually 16-35s and shooting at f2.8. After some vignette reduction, CA reduction & sharpening in raw, most people won't be able to tell the differences, the layman might even say your f1.4 shot looks better, it's due to depth.
Given the above condition, there may be insufficient light. Unless you have a tripod, a big aperture is advisable to prevent camera shake. Because you want to achieve a low ISO setting and a faster shutter speed.
For landscape, I prefer to shoot between F/8 or greater.Shooting at bigger aperture will render everything tack sharp! No one likes to look at a less than sharp landscape.
please visit my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/52996057@N04/
these were taken by my Kit lens last weekend with Sunchasers...
if taking for facebook shots, wide angle at f2.8 might not tell much of a diff.
But in the earlier days when high ISO produced horribly artistic noise, I have a few desperate wide aperture shots in enclosures where tripods cannot be deployed, especially in some of the old churches in europe.