how come nobody mentioned the poor MTF at the corners for the 16-35mm f4??
For a landscape lens, isn't corners performance impt?
how come nobody mentioned the poor MTF at the corners for the 16-35mm f4??
For a landscape lens, isn't corners performance impt?
how come nobody mentioned the poor MTF at the corners for the 16-35mm f4??
For a landscape lens, isn't corners performance impt?
then why did nikon try so hard to make the corners for the 14-24mm sharp (or at least acceptable) at f2.8?
From looking at the MTF numbers, it looked similar to my old 24mm AFD which is REALLY bad. not just soft.
how come nobody mentioned the poor MTF at the corners for the 16-35mm f4??
For a landscape lens, isn't corners performance impt?
The fool proof way of judging a lens is by using it the way you intended, not looking at some chart.....
Actually I suggest using N14-24 or N24-70 than getting a 24 f2.8 prime but prime is much cheaper. Because most of us should have both lens when we are thinking of getting 24 f1.4. Unless you are travelling light there is no point getting a 24 f2.8 prime.
Btw f2.8 and f1.4 is 2 stop different but to me it cant justify the price we pay for it as for the pricing now. If you think it is worth 3K+ for it then just get one and make a comparison.
For D3s it isnt cheap, but comparing to 24 f1.4. I can make use of it high ISO capability to shoot with all other lenses than relying on one and controlling a f1.4 will not be an easy task too in a low light situation.
Amazon listed them as <1300
For now, it is a sweet lens at a more afforadable price.
....flip here flip there....i seem more in love with 16-35mm ...
someone on Dpreview forum said:
"Just buy the Nikon 24-70 and get it over with. 16-35 is not as useful if you're going to be doing a lot of people pics with a FF camera. If you were using two cameras then maybe you could buy both."
what do you guys think? agree? disagree?