If you want to upgrade to a wide angle lens, mainly for landscapes, whether to choose the Zeiss 21mm

It mainly depends on your budget and shooting habits.

If you plan to buy Zeiss 21, it means that your budget is more than 10,000 yuan. In addition, if you want to shoot landscapes, the wider the better.

First of all, the Zeiss 21mm and the Canon 16-35 F are not recommended. The former is not wide enough, I like to shoot landscapes, natural scenery is fine, urban architectural scenery is often not wide enough even if the full 18mm focal length is not wide. The quality of the latter is too poor at the edges, especially in daytime landscapes.

Canon 16-35 F 4 + Sanyang 14mm F. One main shot of the landscape, and the other of the starry sky. ps：

The f 4's head-edge image quality is good and cheap. The small aperture can complement the Sanyang 14. The distortion of the three yang heads is large, but it doesn't matter if you shoot the starry sky.

Cons: None) Canon 11-24 F 4 + Sanyang 14mm F. The reason for recommendation is the same as above,Although the word 11mm and 16mm are only 6mm,But in terms of actual effect,11mm The range of the picture is more than two 16mm。 The wider the scenery, the better.

Cons: too expensive).

Zeiss 15mm F. The fixed focus and large aperture, with a full length of 15mm, can basically meet the wide-angle requirements of more than 90% of large scenes. (Disadvantages: slightly expensive, inconvenient to set focus).

Tamron 15-30mm f. The actual performance beats the Nikon 14-24, with a convenient focal length and a wide aperture. (Disadvantages: It's hard to say without a specific evaluation).

Of course, Zeiss picture quality is much better.

1. Differences:

1.Canon.

24-70 heads:

lighter; Better imaging quality;

Better performance in low-light situations;

**Cheaper within.

2.Canon.

The zoom head is easy to use;

After extensive use of aspherical and low-scatter lenses;

The imaging effect is similar to that of a fixed focus;

The more sophisticated the materials.

1. Canon:

In the early 20th century, Japan's camera industry was lagging behind;

At that time, most people used foreign goods;

A few young Japanese people made domestic cameras in order to make them;

began to imitate high-end German cameras;

And in 1934, he successfully copied the German Leica camera in a small workshop in Tokyo;

Japan's first 35mm focal plane shutter camera, the Kwanon, was also developed.

You only need to pay for those that you want to rinse, and you can delete the other things you don't need;

Color reproduction and color range no longer depend on the quality of the film;

The sensitivity is no longer fixed by the film, and the photoelectric converter chip can provide a variety of sensitivity options.

I think you're talking about sharpness, and if you just look at it, you can't tell it. Some low-end prime apertures are wide open and have very poor sharpness.

There should be no difference, but the fixed focus head is relatively cheaper, and indoors, it still has the advantage of fixed focus.

It depends on what the fixed focus is, the natural image quality of the ordinary fixed focus head can't be compared with 24-70, and the high-end fixed focus head may be better than this.

The 24-70 has no advantage over the 24-105 for imaging on a digital camera, and at the focal length, 70mm is too useful and far less useful than 105mm. If someone says that 70mm is a professional focal length for portraits, I don't think this person is very good at it, at least not a professional photographer in the front line of portrait photography. People who are really professional in portrait photography feel that even 85mm is a bit short!

Why short? This is because the photographer should keep an appropriate distance from the subject, and if the portrait is taken within two meters, it will add an extra sense of pressure to the subject and make the subject uncomfortable. Some portrait masters have always used only one lens:

100mm macro, the so-called "100 micro" of Canon. For commercial portraits, the half-body is commonly used to 100mm, and the avatar is commonly used to 135mm, so the 70-200 lens is commonly used, and there is a 135 2L fixed focus, which has better image quality and is easier to use than 85L! 24-70 shots, only the 24-35 segment is the most useful!

Many people also only use 24 at this end, 70 is neither long nor short, it is difficult to use! If you like 24 lenses, it's better to buy a 24L!

Besides, this aperture, does it work? Of course it works. Is it commonly used?

Of course not often! Because it's not for low light (low light is not as important as using stabilization), but for a shallower depth of field than 4 apertures, to blur the background. But for what?

The background of the beauty is blurred, is it so blurred that you can't see what the environment is? Is there a big difference between shooting from a thousand miles away and shooting at your doorstep? In fact, most people who know how to do it nowadays do not blur the background into a mess, but use the aperture left and right, so that the background has a little explanation, and the explanation of the looming background scene is very important.

Having said that, if you want to blur the background and pursue an oily bokeh, the 70 is far less oily than the 135L 2-aperture in bokeh imaging!

The conclusion is: 24-70 is not as practical as 24-105 in the focal length, heavy, huge, no anti-shake mirror body, except for the appearance of the tiger's eye, except for the photographer's neck to press out of the cervical spine dislocation, (haha), there is no advantage at all.

You have a misunderstanding that expensive lenses are not necessarily good lenses, and they may not be good**.

What you call expensive lenses should be 16-35 24-70 70-200 or something.

This kind of lens is also known as a constant large aperture zoom lens, and the reason why it is expensive is because it has a relatively large aperture and can zoom at the same time.

But in terms of the quality of the film, they are inferior to prime lenses. It's just that the fixed focus head can't zoom, and it's inconvenient for many people to use.

There are three prime lenses that are the best for portrait shooting (generally considered by the industry): one is 85mm (large glasses), the other is 135mm, and the third is 200mm, known as the air cutting machine).

But if you want to shoot a good portrait**, the lens isn't the only deciding factor. Composition, creativity, gesture ......all account for a large proportion. If you're a beginner, try the Canon 50 or Sigma 50.

Cheap and works well. If you have money, you can go straight to 85.

First of all, the focal length of 17-40 is too short for portraits, and wide-angle portraits are always rarely used. The f4 aperture is also very limited in order to blur the background. The cross-frame camera 50 is better, and the full-frame 85mm-135mm is commonly used.

It's better to shoot portraits with a prime lens.