[Rover]

Klaus, you misspelled "Yongnuo" in the "industry news" column.
[/evil proofreader mode]
Anyway, this lens looks a new and unique design (optically), wonder how well is it going to perform? The old Canon was nothing to write home about until about f/2.5 or 2.8, much like its sibling the 28/1.8. I tried both for awhile but chose to stay away from either, even though the 28/1.8 looks pretty sexy.

That's pretty normal. Even a lens like the Zeiss 50 F/1.4 is only getting good at around F/4 - F/5.6. Considering its price I was rather disappointed with it; the 50L was better, although they were more or less the same from about F/4 onwards. There generally are only few fast lenses which are very good wide open, and even then they tend show some fall-off towards the corners.

Relatively cheap lenses like will perform well for their money, but again, you;d have toi stop them down to F/4, F/5.6 for optimal results.

Kind regards, Wim

I would say this WAS normal for the lenses of yore, when all fast 50s were similarly simple, like 7/6 in a double gauss. The Zeiss 50 you are talking (I presume you meant the old ZE/ZF thingy) about was really the same, and the only thing distinguishing it from the rest of the crowd were the Zeiss name and the metal housing. I've seen the samples: it had coke bottle sharpness at f/1.4 and not much better at f/2 except at the very center. Now, of course, this has not been considered acceptable for a while already; see all the new and original designs coming up, including but not limited to the Sigma Art and the Zeiss Milvus.