|
|
06-24-2017, 08:28 AM
It started promising ... but then it ended in ... perhaps not.
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_f...a1224f4art 
06-24-2017, 08:46 AM
Thanks for your test and findings. We obviously didn't have the same lens and I tried it only less than half an hour, but I thought I was seeking for flares, ghostings, fringing and all the stuff I knew from the Nikkor - and I was positively "disappointed" not to find these, at least not in a all too obvious way. But maybe I was too careful? When looking at my pictures in the range of 18-24 mm I could not see fiel curvature - but then, the idea occurred when the subject is perspectively, that curvature might even help to increase DoF?
Edit: I was looking at your 7 sample pictures and hoping to find some "ghostings" to proof of curvature. Not to defend the lens - I just want to know what it looks like your were talking about? 
Ew...
Looks like an f/4-5.6 lens after all.  But I guess for many people it'll be practically a 12mm prime anyway.  (but then, the distortion... ZOMG)P. S. No 21MP results this time around?
06-24-2017, 09:32 AM
There are no 18 or 24mm sample images (except a leaf close up), so a bit difficult to look for the field curvature there...
06-24-2017, 09:37 AM
Quote:Ew...For prime, I'd rather look at the Irix 11mm f4 instead 
06-24-2017, 09:40 AM
Very good real world review, especially given the detailed info on the lens's field of curvature which causes a little "mayhem" at the longer focal lengths, most reviews mention nothing of that genre.
I'm not sure if a compromise setting, (putting the focus point at the 1/1/3rd of the way from the frame edge) would help ease the corner/ edge situation, probably? Huge lens though and heavy at 1.15 Kgs....this is a lens you can get round by using two lighter primes or a prime and a zoom, there's the Samyang 14mm F2.8, (one stop brighter for peanuts for example) On a trip this lens would be a pain to carry coupled added to your standard kit! Quote:For prime, I'd rather look at the Irix 11mm f4 insteadNo AF, no sell for me (YMMV of course). I'd like to see a 12mm AF prime from someone to replace my 14mm Sigma (which is not stellar in itself, albeit passable, but also comes a little too close in the FL department to the 16-35mm lens that I call my bread and butter unit...) Tamron, I'm looking at you.
06-24-2017, 09:46 AM
Quote:No AF, no sell for me (YMMV of course). I'd like to see a 12mm AF prime from someone to replace my 14mm Sigma (which is not stellar in itself, albeit passable, but also comes a little too close in the FL department to the 16-35mm lens that I call my bread and butter unit...)Klaus mentions that the Sigma tends to overshoot AF?
06-24-2017, 10:42 AM
Quote: Actually, I would like see some evidence how it looks like and how big's the impact. 7 samples are not a lot, I was scrolling through 48 pictures (less than an hour? ha! 20 minutes - so really nothing to call it a test) and simply could not see these problems in real world. But I realized I have less high expectations on sharpness as there is so much to be seen on the picture - I simply didn't bother enough to see the structures of leaves close to the lens' ∞ position. Although I tried the lens, I also think of looking at the Irix would be worth to do. As for lack of AF: I haven't tried a DLSR-body (so far) which had no troubles to AF these UWA reliably. Apparently the grass is not much greener at the Canon side of the hills, and I think there are not much subjects in UWA situations which are moving so quickly. Personally, I don't see the value of PDAF in that region to be a ,must have'. |
