+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: From da lab ... (/showthread.php?tid=5064)
From da lab ... - Klaus - 06-12-2021
A $1000 (USD) lens ...
Possibly a new record?
The corners are black without image auto-correction, BTW.
RE: From da lab ... - toni-a - 06-12-2021
SONY 16-50F2.8
They heavily rely on digital correction
RE: From da lab ... - Rover - 06-12-2021
I think the Tamron 20/2.8 FE had even more but maybe it depends on how to measure it. EPZ measured 8.13% there and called it a record among non-(designated)fisheyes.
How well does the auto-correction clean that up?
RE: From da lab ... - Brightcolours - 06-12-2021
The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has similar black corners when uncorrected.
RE: From da lab ... - Rover - 06-12-2021
I'm still not sure why. After all, there was a good Canon 17-55/2.8 IS lens - admittedly it was bigger and didn't go down to 16mm, but it didn't suffer from that kind of distortion/vignetting either.
RE: From da lab ... - Brightcolours - 06-12-2021
To keep the element count down I guess. And perhaps the resulting price.
RE: From da lab ... - Rover - 06-12-2021
Well, it wouldn't matter in practice for someone like me, I guess, since I only ever shoot JPEG but it's not pleasant to know that so much is being patched up under the hood.
RE: From da lab ... - Klaus - 06-14-2021
It's fully corrected even at 16mm.
The form factor of the lens is really nice. Not sure about the MTFs yet.
However, one thing IS for sure. The price is NUTS.
Remember that there's the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 VC.
RE: From da lab ... - Klaus - 06-14-2021
FWIW, the RAW MTFs at 16mm are outstanding ... the corrected ones ... not so much.
RE: From da lab ... - Brightcolours - 06-14-2021
(06-14-2021, 08:21 AM)Klaus Wrote: FWIW, the RAW MTFs at 16mm are outstanding ... the corrected ones ... not so much.
That makes a lot of sense.