Firstly, I am the absolute last guy who should be lecturing on not giving into wants; if I want something bad enough, I will figure out a justification to get it! But for me, the only logic I had toward wide primes was I wanted the best possible image quality for landscape shots. But at the same time, I knew there was a negative side to them; and that is their inability to adjust framing from a fixed position often mandated in landscape imaging.
My story: I sold my favorite landscape zoom at the time -- a particularly good copy of the 17-35/2.8 AF, very sharp centrally but fell off to just "pretty good" in the outer third, to virtually unusable in the very corners. But the rest of it was so good, I learned to shoot it a little loose and crop the bad corners out when I needed good corners. What was interesting is a majority of the images I made with it were closer 24mm after the crop than they were 20mm. So I sold the 17-35 and bought a Sigma ART 24. An exceptional lens, perfectly sharp corner to corner. And a beast. First workshop out with it, I was left wanting the 17 end of the zoom I had sold... :facesmack: So before the next trip, I bought a 20/1.8 G -- another very good lens, but not quite as good as the Sigma, though not as massive either -- a good compromise. I liked the 20G so much, I sold the Sigma ART and bought the 24/1.8G -- it wasn't as good as the 20/1.8 and I never really connected with it. And most of all? I still missed that 17-35 zoom... Should have never sold it, and have felt remorse until now -- the 14-30S has finally assuaged my guilt of letting that 17-35 go... I respect your needs and desires may vary from mine, but I felt my story may be relevant
I'm totally with you here, specially your statement "if I want something bad enough, I will figure out a justification to get it!". I have always had that romantic vision, just one camera, one lens, I'm sure if that was the circumstances, one would be just as lucky, if not even more, instead of this consumption-circus we all are a part off.
Your words encourage me to (for a while at least) be fully satisfied with the 14-30, while its just so much more mature than it's size let you know, more crisp than the old 14-24/2.8G, more interesting. Even though I think Jan is right with the statement above, you might always be able to separate enough, if you just get close enough. If it is street, trying to catch people, getting close, it's almost always a matter of being in the sufficient mood (which not always are there, but one can try to dig it out) to throw your inhibitions overboard, meeting people with an optimistic childish smile, hipshooting, and 95% of the time you will get the same childish smile including forgiveness back (apart from: the more educated or wealthy people are, the more difficult it often is to, for the needed seconds, to establish that rewarding ping-pong featherlight interaction, sorry to say, often a matter of willingness to play your whole human existence (also from the "victims") into the game without being afraid of status-loosing). With buildings I often have traditional and perhaps a bit boring approach wanting it all to be fairly sharp
, and the 14-30 just deliver.
But yes, Jack, as you remember, I bought the 17-35 on your recommendation, still got it, didn't use it that much (too much choices, too many disturbing dreams, I guess), but on the Df it certainly did deliver, in a way I in one word would call: smooth (and charming). just a revisit back (and just to step in your wound..
) to one posted in 2017 (but at f8, and the Df sensor certainly is guilty in the (in my eyes) delicate drawing too), would the 14-30 on the Z7 be able to draw in the same way?, I doubt:
but I have just weighed them: the 17-35 is 764 grams and the 14-30 is just 512 gram, both with filter but without caps. 252 grams less, or in another way: the 17-35 weighs 49% more than the 14-30. So I think there is still no reason to regret...
, its so handy and communicating, the Z7/14-30 combo..