... the manufacturer of this lens, no?
-- Markus
Not much worse than Sigma or Nikon (not to say "practically the very same"), so what do you try to tell us?
"not much worse"? Both the Sigma and the Nikkor are far from 3 stops wide open, and still do better at f/2...
-- Markus
I'm more of a visual person. If a graph goes up to 2.1, I don't read the numbers, because I'm no big fan of redundant information. Sure, I could have read the numbers - but why using graphs then?
This kind of reading/interpretation error will happen to other people, too.
That's a valid claim, but when we initially set the scale, we honestly did not expect many lenses to go well beyond 2.1 stops. And to maintain comparability with other reviews, I don't really want to change the scale.
-- Markus
Then you will have to learn to live with comments like mine, although it's my short eyesight.
If you don't want to change the range of the scale, how do you deal with critics like "at first look the lenses are the same"?
"okay, maybe the world is not flat, but I really don't want to change the maps..." :lol:
These diagrams werde made to provide a quick comparison, without reading and learning the numbers. If a lens goes out of the range of the diagram, it's not fairt aganst the ones which are inside and just so at it's limits.
Well, that's why we usually also provide a little bit of text to go with the graphs...
-- Markus
That went well with my reading... :ph34r:
Bingo!
@JoJu: better?
-- Markus