I've been pondering this for a while. In photography circles in general, you always hear people talk about the importance of good glass.
I tend to associate "good" glass with being fast. I.e. f/2.8 or bigger.
But, I generally just shoot WA and CFWA. So, I am almost always using f/8 (equivalent) or smaller/slower.
In that case, is there really any benefit to buying "better" glass? If I'm always going to shoot it at f/8 or smaller?
To be specific: I'm shooting an m43 camera with the kit lens. I did upgrade from a cheap wet wide angle dome to a good one (a Nauticam WWL-1). That did make a really nice improvement in image quality. By my actual lens is still the $100 kit 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 lens and I'm almost always shooting it at a focal length of 14mm (FF equiv. to 28mm) and f/4 - f/5.6 (FF equiv. to f/8 to f/11).
If I were consistently shooting at, say, 18mm, would it really improve my images to change from the kit lens zoomed to 18mm to a nice 18mm prime (just for example). Same focal length. Same f/stop. Better picture?
I tend to associate "good" glass with being fast. I.e. f/2.8 or bigger.
But, I generally just shoot WA and CFWA. So, I am almost always using f/8 (equivalent) or smaller/slower.
In that case, is there really any benefit to buying "better" glass? If I'm always going to shoot it at f/8 or smaller?
To be specific: I'm shooting an m43 camera with the kit lens. I did upgrade from a cheap wet wide angle dome to a good one (a Nauticam WWL-1). That did make a really nice improvement in image quality. By my actual lens is still the $100 kit 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 lens and I'm almost always shooting it at a focal length of 14mm (FF equiv. to 28mm) and f/4 - f/5.6 (FF equiv. to f/8 to f/11).
If I were consistently shooting at, say, 18mm, would it really improve my images to change from the kit lens zoomed to 18mm to a nice 18mm prime (just for example). Same focal length. Same f/stop. Better picture?