Large aperture lenses - quality at smaller apertures?

[ivandobski]

Right, I've confused myself a bit I think.

I've been considering upgrading my kit 18-55 (3.5 - 5.6) to a Tamron 17 - 50 2.8 lens. I'd be using this for landscape mainly but also as a general lens.

So whilst I understand that the larger aperture means a "faster" lens and hence for the general stuff would be an improvement in low light would there be any benefit when the lens is set at F13 say for landscapes?

Or would the improvements come from the lens quality itself rather than the larger max aperture per se?

 

[renu]

when you step it down to f13 it is due to the quality of the lens .There are plenty of threads in the forum regarding aperture and shutter speed.

 

[simonblue]

Its alway nice to have fast lens,but a lot of cheaper lens do perform well when using an smaller aperture,and a few of the cheaper fast lens dont alway perform so well at their full aperture.

So its a bit of swings & roundabouts.

I would say if you need fast aperture lens,buy the best you can adford.

 

[ivandobski]

Cheers guys, I thought was the case.

 

[Musicman]

Its alway nice to have fast lens,but a lot of cheaper lens do perform well when using an smaller aperture

indeed, not infrequently it can be that a slower and cheaper lens performs better stopped down.

Lenses usually perform best a two or three stops down from fully open, so a slower lens may better suit your needs if you're going to be shooting mostly at f/8 or f/11.