UWA for travel

[ZerocoolAstra]

as mentioned before i tried 35mm on my cropped body, I feel it to be tight, maybe because my preference as a shooter is really on the wild (wide) side =)

ya exactly,
That's why I'm really curious how Mr michaelwks can be recommending prime for both landscape and portraits when travelling, and the widest prime he has is the Sigma 30/1.4... :dunno:

Doesn't mean that 30/1.4 cannot be used for landscapes, of course...

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I tried to use this effect here, but not that noticeable, but the concept is there hehe

horizon tilted!!! :bigeyes:

hahaha

 

[D-Wade]

horizon tilted!!! :bigeyes:

hahaha

am lazy to correct in PS, boat is rocking you know hehehe

 

[zzyzx]

i love landscape photograpghy and owned the 14mm and the 35mm, but due to the versatility i bought a 16-35. prime is never consider lighter and easier to carry since you always have to carry more than 1 lens and have to switch between them too.

prime used to be winner in the image quality department but on newer zoom lens they're not too far behind. unless you're using the full size image, you're most likely going to pp then downsize it. by then if you compare both downsized photos taken by a prime and a good zoom lens, you probably cannot tell which is sharper then which.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

i love landscape photograpghy and owned the 14mm and the 35mm, but due to the versatility i bought a 16-35. prime is never consider lighter and easier to carry since you always have to carry more than 1 lens and have to switch between them too.

prime used to be winner in the image quality department but on newer zoom lens they're not too far behind. unless you're using the full size image, you're most likely going to pp then downsize it. by then if you compare both downsized photos taken by a prime and a good zoom lens, you probably cannot tell which is sharper then which.

I've heard very good things about the 16-35L, so I believe you should be quite pleased with it
Yes agreed about the sharpness being practically indistinguishable. Zooms have come a long way.

I believe the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is sharper than the Nikkor 14/2.8

 

[zzyzx]

I've heard very good things about the 16-35L, so I believe you should be quite pleased with it
Yes agreed about the sharpness being practically indistinguishable. Zooms have come a long way.

I believe the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is sharper than the Nikkor 14/2.8

let's put it this way. i love my 14mm and 35mm as well as my 16-35. they all has their pros and cons.

14mm: sharper at corners compared to 16-35
35mm: faster lens but the CA is real bad
16-35mm: at 16mm, as sharp as the 14mm at center but a little softer at corners but within my satisfaction.
16-35mm: at 35mm, not far away from 35mm apart from the f/1.4 vs f/2.8

given the little difference of image quality, i take the 16-35 unless in very low light then the 35mm comes into the play