I compared the two downloaded pictures two ways - zoomed, but at the same image size, and zoomed to the same percentage. The kite is significantly sharper both ways in all three viewers I used. Were I to choose just on that basis, I would choose that lens. The size, weight and probably cost comparisons make the choice easy, though I probably would not use the extender. The only question I might pose is - you're comparing lenses, but not on the same camera; I don't know how much difference that will make!

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

What I like about a Nikon D850....it has aspect ratio options in camera. If I want a 16 x 9 preview, I switch the D850 into video mode and it captures images directly into the 16 x 9 aspect ratio which I prefer for a more panoramic view. Some shots just look better with certain aspect ratios. For landscapes and seascapes, I try to get the horizon line either about 1/3 from the image top or about 1/3 from the image bottom; the choice is determined but which element of the image I want to emphasize...the foreground or the expanse of the sky.

In my work, conforming to specific aspect ratios can be important and in many cases, however, in other situations, I am not al all concerted with a pre-determined ratio.

Obviously, in many commercial layouts, images that will appear on television screens or transilluminated display cases and menus, billboards, feature stories or advertisements in magazines, etc, there may be a specified space that must be observed and all compositional elements for the get-go have to be planned accordingly. In the old days o retail portraiture, we shot for frames and albums of standard sizes. Seem the 4:3 ratio rules and the camera maker began to market "ideal format" cameras (6x7 and 6x4.6 cm) to address the 8x10 prints and larger formats of similar proportions.

I have done a lot of research and study as to where these "ideal" ratios came from- the old master's paintings, the theories of ancient mathematicians, the composition "rules thirds, and things lie in the "golden ratio"- all good to know in the back of your mind but really- enough to drive one crazy while shooting! Besides, there are so many other interesting formats, including panoramic, and even circular or oval compositions. Ain't nothing wrong with squares instead of rectangles.

So, back in the day when I was shooting tons of weddings on film, I went rogue! I broke tradition and went to a square format and went expensive as well-Hasselblad. Not for prestige either, It's just that his glass was super sharp, the film plane in the magazines was super flat and with a decent moderately speed colour negative material, a bit of cropping did not harm to the IQ- I made fine 24x30 and 3x40 prints from sections of 2 1/4 negatives. I made custom-bound multi-size albums and offered custom frames and matting of odd sizes.

I apply the same theory in my digital commercial photography and portraiture today. Of course, it's good to fill the frame as much as possible and still maintain good composition but there are so many alternatives that can be more interesting, such as negative space, the sorts of traditional and odd aspect ratios in the finished product.

After all, why invest in high-quality lenses and the latest cameras with high pixel counts if you can't leave a bit of space in certain compositions and crop accordingly as per your planned final composition or aspect ratio.

There are times when shooting action where you may not be able to fill a frame or precisely decide long a specific compositor or aspect ratio in a split second. You shoot and crop- you don't scrap the shot if you cant get in closer.

Here's a link to a nice article on aspect ratios and various compositional concepts.
https://phlearn.com/magazine/how-to-know-which-aspect-ratio-to-use-in-your-photography/