11-09-2011, 12:21 PM
If I were you I would compare the green column in the center with the same green columns in the corners.
If the 18-55 II and VR were twice the resolution to that of the 18-35, there would be significant differences.
Now look at the 35 f/2. You will see that there is such a difference in the corners.
As I have said over and over again, the corner performance of the 18-35 can not be, and is not, as bad as that claimed by PZ if you look at my links.
You tell me how could the 18-35 can get a value of 992 yet the 18-55 gets 1926 when they look almost identical right through out the frame?
According to PZ, the 35mm f/2 at f4 gets 1827 in the corners and yet there is a significant and noticeable difference between center and corner performance. 1827 is way way bigger than 992 but only a bit less than 1926.
Do you get it now?
If the 18-55 II and VR were twice the resolution to that of the 18-35, there would be significant differences.
Now look at the 35 f/2. You will see that there is such a difference in the corners.
As I have said over and over again, the corner performance of the 18-35 can not be, and is not, as bad as that claimed by PZ if you look at my links.
You tell me how could the 18-35 can get a value of 992 yet the 18-55 gets 1926 when they look almost identical right through out the frame?
According to PZ, the 35mm f/2 at f4 gets 1827 in the corners and yet there is a significant and noticeable difference between center and corner performance. 1827 is way way bigger than 992 but only a bit less than 1926.
Do you get it now?