Why I (think I) need a CZ16-35

[sury]

I have been wanting a WA lens for a while and Valery mentioned about Zeiss 16-35 in one of his posts and
since then I believe am afflicted with and suffering from GAS. This a an example of why I believe I need a WA.
I was "forced" to use Panorama to generate a wide angle view of my backyard. I am hoping such a plaintive cry for help
will make the Missus heart melt and treat my GAS. Looking for endorsements from the forum to strengthen my case.





Attempt at Brenizer Method of Panorama.

[ValeryD]

Yeah.. Not so often, but we need 16-35 and only Zeiss.

PS. Panoramas looks good.

[sury]

Thank you Valery. One support vote and counting.

Sury

[aster]

Hi, Sury.

Most of all, if it will make you happy, reason enough to go for it. Zeiss also picks up an extra lot of colours and details that may not be as easy to show in clarity by other lenses. Such a lens will deserve more than the width of your lovely garden though. Your last trip and the previous ones to the icy glaciers might have benefitted from such a lens.

Yildiz

[ValeryD]

Hi, Sury.

Most of all, if it will make you happy, reason enough to go for it. Zeiss also picks up an extra lot of colours and details that may not be as easy to show in clarity by other lenses. Such a lens will deserve more than the width of your lovely garden though. Your last trip and the previous ones to the icy glaciers might have benefitted from such a lens.

Yildiz

I have to admit that you are absolutely right about Zeiss lenses - Zeiss lenses have a 99% stable result.