08-17-2010, 02:36 PM
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1282053499' post='1841']
I am quite surprised by the results. Was expecting the optical quality to be a total disaster as compared to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 @ 14 mm. But hey, hey... it's just as good with much less distortion.
So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
Actually the sample wasn't even perfect.
I am quite surprised by the results. Was expecting the optical quality to be a total disaster as compared to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 @ 14 mm. But hey, hey... it's just as good with much less distortion.
So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
Actually the sample wasn't even perfect.