Seriously Canon?

Brightcolours

Rover wrote
Meanwhile, I'm wondering about the "interesting" rating Klaus hints at. I can remember only one 1* lens here, the Sony 16/2.8 pancake. The Nikon 18-35 D used to be a 1* lens but Markus reviewed a second sample and lifted the result to 1 1/2*, same as the Tokina 16.5-135 and the suspiciously similar (and similarly lackluster) Pentax 18-135. I wonder which of these is about to have company?

(And yes, I checked and the EF Canon 50/1.2 somehow managed 2 stars on FF, so it's not in that company)

The lens is not that bad... Apparently not good in de borders at 24mm (when corrected). But the rest of the focal lengths will be better.
Klaus tends to score corrected results when a lens relies on camera/software correction.

me

Most of the reviews show uncorrected data. The only exception is MFT and a handful of lenses where the correction profile can't be deactivated.

The problem is - the effect of the correction algorithms varies dependent on the specific converter.

mst

Rover wrote
Oh, a review by Phil Askey. 🙂 But it's been awhile and it was a stopgap model before M9 and all the stuff that followed, anyway. Maybe Markus has things to say about it.

I honestly don't have nice things to say about the M8 😉 I actually had one, but returned it soon.

The M9 is a completely different story... but I'm still stuck there, so I can't say much about "all the stuff that followed" 😉

Rover wrote
Besides, it wasn't APS-C anyway, right? 🙂

Right, the M8 was APS-H.

Rover

mst wrote
Rover wrote
Oh, a review by Phil Askey. 🙂 But it's been awhile and it was a stopgap model before M9 and all the stuff that followed, anyway. Maybe Markus has things to say about it.

I honestly don't have nice things to say about the M8 😉 I actually had one, but returned it soon.

The M9 is a completely different story... but I'm still stuck there, so I can't say much about "all the stuff that followed" 😉

Rover wrote
Besides, it wasn't APS-C anyway, right? 🙂

Right, the M8 was APS-H.

Pity there aren't any more Leica M reviews. Not my side of the alley, not by a long shot, but these were enlightening to read, if only to see how a completely different lens design/usage ethos pans out in real world quality and test results. I remember the story behind their cessation though... pity also that some people need to take brand loyalty to ludicrous extremes. (reminds me of a guy in CR forum recently that went totally ballistic trash talking Sigma and Tamron lenses - to an extrent I haven't really seen for years and years, unless of course Ken Rockwell is brought into the discussion, which I'd rather avoid 🙂 ).

Rover

ETA for 24-105/4-7.1 review: April 1st? 🙂

me

I will publish the 85 and 50 first. I need some guidance about the MTF ceiling. I suspect the 24-105 STM doesn't qualify there ;-)

Rover

The 85 might. The 50, doubtful.

me

There aren't many lenses that can match the center resolution of a nifty-fifty at f/2.8 ...

mst

Klaus wrote
There aren't many lenses that can match the center resolution of a nifty-fifty at f/2.8 ...

...even if the manufacturer's published MTFs promise otherwise, I might add. I am referring to a different manufacturer than Canon, though 😉

Rover

Hmm, if your own test is any indication, the Canon 50/1.8 II was not hitting it out of the park at f/2.8. At f/4 though... 🙂

mst

Nope. Not Canon, as I wrote 😉 And nothing you can read, yet. But soon 😉

« Previous Page