>>3364403No.
These people will disregard an F1,4 prime and go for the F2,8 lens instead. Even if the F1,4 prime will produce a cleaner, higher quality image in the same light conditions.
There is nothign scientific about these people.
They are simply Sharpness whores.
If you have high sharpness + brand name, then you have them hooked.
>>3364413I'm not talking about average. I'm talking about a modern sigma prime lens that is perfectly balanced, vs a slow-ass $1500 Zeiss monstrosity.
The Sharpness whores will still argue the narrow Aperture lens is higher IQ, depsite their shaky hands producing blurry images every time.
>>3364440I know all of that.
But it was the perfect example of my original argument, sharpness whores will always disregard usability as a secondary to their MTF number.
Hence I used that as the example.
>>3364459I'm actually quite reasonable person, I like both aperture and sharpness, and they are not always mutually exclusive.
But there just exist a group of people who for example revered the Zeiss 18/21 F2,8 lenses, no matter how shitty they were
All because of the aperture.
I can't stand that type, especially when they talk ship about faster lenses that are actually very superb at the same apertures.
