Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SkvLTD" data-source="post: 280211" data-attributes="member: 12855">By nature wide lenses will distort lines so I'm still not sure why they're good for landscapes... (or is that only for objects closer than infinity/reasonably far distance?)Also, 1.4 and 1.8 aren't really miles apart and the optical quality isn't too far from one another either, but 35 1.8 DX actually hardly vignettes on FX, so you could've saved yourself ~400 on getting that 50. Also, the 50 is no longer a portraiture lens on FX as it can be on DX, but 85 or 105 are and they are much, much better. 105 2.8 Micro would be a much better investment IMO.Else enjoy miles and miles of wonderful difference between the 2 bodies like I am.</blockquote>