drklrd wrote:
Actually any lens can be used for landscape shots. Just depends
on what you want to include in the shot or not to include in a shot.
Thaz a rare piece of common sense wisdom. Don't proclaim it too
loudly though, lest you wind up banned from the internet !
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly ALL extra wide angle landscape images I've seen lately
are "created" by the lens effects. If there was really an intriguing
scene there even without using an extra wide lens, then it could
be recorded with a 35 or a 28 [FF equiv] or even a normal lens.
IOW wild extreme perspective is bogus. Visually it tells me little
or nothing about the natural scene and its details. It mostly tells
me "This is what my ultrawide does to the world".
Ultrawide-ism is a cult, just like the Bokeh Cult. These two cults
unite at an absurdly expensive intersection: Extreme lens speed
offers extreme bokeh, despite an extremely short FL lens with its
naturally occurring deeeeep DoF, a DoF that "MUST" be defeated
to display overly silly bokeh. [Over use of the word "extreme" is
not accidental here.]
Sad to say that for the APSC format legacy lenses are a problem
for achieving a moderate wide angle view. Due to the 1.5X crop,
you need an extra wide FF lens to get a moderate wide angle for
APSC ... acoarst all legacy lenses are FF :-( If you want excellent
optics, you don't usually find it in 40 yr old extra wide lenses due
to the design compromises that achieve the extra angle of view.
Likewise using a SpeedBooster to fit a nice tame 35/2.8 FF lens
onto an APSC body is not the route to optical excellence.
A very simple solution is a compact FF body, adaptable to legacy
lenses. The basic original model Sony a7 is compact, and lately is
relatively cheap, while supplies last.
If you're gonna carry 2 or 3 legacy lenses, which are compact but
do tend to be heavy for their size, you will hardly notice the size
difference between an a6000 and an a7. PLUS ! The a6XXX series
has a horrible tripod interface, while the a7 is much better [altho
not especially great either].
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern lenses will score better than legacy when "Lab Tested",
but in real-world, 24MP imaging at f/8 and f/11 the better legacy
lenses show no visible deficiency worth worrying about. On close
inspection there may be MINOR residual optical flaws visible even
at f/8 or f/11. I wrote "minor" in ALL CAPS cuz I have a practical
definition of MINOR optical flaws: They're visible upon the rather
close inspection that occurs when the picture is otherwise just so
godawful boring that the nittpicking of tiny flaws is all the visual
stimulation it offers ... after the initial 5 seconds of "Oh ! wow !
Lookit that extreeeeeme ultrawide perspective effect !" IOW, if
the picture is actually really interesting, no normal person will
ever notice small optical flaws. Ergo those are MINOR flaws !
Too many shooters have failed to develop an eye for interesting
scenes in the real world cuz it's easier to look for fodder for their
ultrawide lenses. IOW they don't really find worthwhile scenes in
the real-world sense. They just produce "hardware manufactured
vistas" out of easier to find "ultrawide lens fodder". BOH-RING !