[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1351019239' post='20689']
This is normal.
I would be very surprised if slrgear performed tests on a flat plane rather than on the focus field. This would be naive testing (of defocused zones). Manufacturer MTFs are also provided based on the focus field.
[/quote]
"Normal" as in "expected and desirable for a lens". I can understand if it's normal for this particular model.
By the way, for the sake of completeness here's another review of this lens. The verdict is unsurprising.
http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/canon-lenses/canon-wide-angle/80-canon-ef-20mm-f28-usm-lens-review
By the way, I was bored today so I compared the results with those of the old Nikon 20/2.8 D, and it looked so much better in comparison (of course I didn't compare exact figures, just the resolution bar heights and general impressions), despite being an old design with mechanically dated implementation.
This is normal.
I would be very surprised if slrgear performed tests on a flat plane rather than on the focus field. This would be naive testing (of defocused zones). Manufacturer MTFs are also provided based on the focus field.
[/quote]
"Normal" as in "expected and desirable for a lens". I can understand if it's normal for this particular model.
By the way, for the sake of completeness here's another review of this lens. The verdict is unsurprising.
http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/canon-lenses/canon-wide-angle/80-canon-ef-20mm-f28-usm-lens-review
By the way, I was bored today so I compared the results with those of the old Nikon 20/2.8 D, and it looked so much better in comparison (of course I didn't compare exact figures, just the resolution bar heights and general impressions), despite being an old design with mechanically dated implementation.