>>4371230Framing ones is like that that are 5.6 to f 6.3? Are really compromised in their Optical performance. They don't take the trouble to really work on fixing aberrations you have to do that in post-production. I've been a photographer for 35 years. What I used to do before was get some burning dodging and cropping. Now on my computer about all I do sometimes is crop it the colors are accurate when's Distortion is taken care of in camera and is unobtrusively reduced.
Modern digital cameras have extremely accurate color reproduction. You're very seldom need to mess with that unless you trying to achieve an effect, or you're shooting at extreme times of the day like very late in the evening when everything is orange.
Framing lenses have been around nearly forever. I remember looking with Angie at the 35 to 70 and the 40 mm to 80 mm that is offered for contacts and then Nikon's offerings as well. They were basically a solution looking for a problem to solve. People who were wanted to only take one lens along with them and we're particularly concerned with the image quality or anything like that. I care about image quality and I know when I can make this trade off and when I shouldn't.
When being quick on the shutter button matters then it's fine. If you have time to make a choice go for a better lens. If I need to be quick and I don't have a lot of time to move around as well, my 70 to 200 F 2.8 is nearly perfect. It's image quality is superlative and this is coming from a guy shot on Zeiss Optics from his 35 mm and is medium format and large format photography. If I have time to think about it and I need reach and image quality above everything else, I'll reach for my 200 mm F 1.8 Canon lens. There's a reason that people who have these in good shape of them, and use organizations bought most of them over the years. And the only ones you can find nowadays second hand are ones released by news departments
