I have another 66% crop here for your consideration:
Shot at f/2.0, +1EV (!) but I'm sure that with the overall exposure of this image (remember, the crop doesn't show all), this shot is effectively even more overexposed at this particular part.
Looks much better, eh?!
Well, this is the Nikon 35
mm f/2.0. This is just to explain why I was not amused to find much worse fringing on a lens of similar vintage, construction and price.
As to the comments about landscape: There are famous people shooting landscape with 200-400mm zooms
So there's nothing strange about shooting landscape with a 85mm/1.8 lens which was only dubbed a "portrait-lens" because of its focal length. There are even people out there saying that this lens is "too sharp" for portraiture (those recommend the 85/1.4).
And using the lens wide open on landscape shots? Well, have you ever tried to render one specific tree sharp and the background oof? Well, at those distances where you need to stand to capture trees and the ensuing magnifications (about 1:500) you need the largest aperture you can lay your hands on to achieve any oof at all.
Btw. the same is true for many other subjects in nature...
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews
, My Pictures
, My Photography Blog