@troll:
So... even after telling you how you're constantly mistyping my nick, you're still doing it. A silly attempt to annoy me?
It is, of course, possible to design a FF ultra-wide which doesn't have 3 to 1.8 stops of vignetting (that is, never falling below 1.8 stops). We know that because it was done.
It being a mirrorless lens only removes the significant constraint of needing long register distance. There's much more freedom in designing the optics.
So what we're talking about here is a deliberate decision to not better correct (optically) for vignetting, relying on software corrections instead.
That made their job easier (that is, to meet the other design criteria), together with the fact that it's a mirrorless lens. Much easier compared to a SLR lens like the D FA 21mm.
And that's exactly why the Sony and Nikon can be 20mm f/1.8 lenses, yet a bit lighter and smaller than the SLR 21mm f/2.4 lens.
Note that I'm not saying "under-engineered", I'm not saying it's a poor lens, nothing of that bullshit you're making up just to invent "attacks" on other brands.
But such explanations are wasted, because you're behaving like a pigeon: knocking over the pieces, shitting all over the board and strutting around like you've won.
So... even after telling you how you're constantly mistyping my nick, you're still doing it. A silly attempt to annoy me?
It is, of course, possible to design a FF ultra-wide which doesn't have 3 to 1.8 stops of vignetting (that is, never falling below 1.8 stops). We know that because it was done.
It being a mirrorless lens only removes the significant constraint of needing long register distance. There's much more freedom in designing the optics.
So what we're talking about here is a deliberate decision to not better correct (optically) for vignetting, relying on software corrections instead.
That made their job easier (that is, to meet the other design criteria), together with the fact that it's a mirrorless lens. Much easier compared to a SLR lens like the D FA 21mm.
And that's exactly why the Sony and Nikon can be 20mm f/1.8 lenses, yet a bit lighter and smaller than the SLR 21mm f/2.4 lens.
Note that I'm not saying "under-engineered", I'm not saying it's a poor lens, nothing of that bullshit you're making up just to invent "attacks" on other brands.
But such explanations are wasted, because you're behaving like a pigeon: knocking over the pieces, shitting all over the board and strutting around like you've won.
(10-19-2021, 07:35 AM)davidmanze Wrote: Realistically if you can afford the DA* 21mm F2.4 ....... and it gets dropped and bends the aluminium hood and barrel, rendering the lens unusable , no worries, it's likely you have the money to have the barrel and integrated hood assembly replaced ...... !There's a choice between addressing a low probability event (a lens falling) or preferring the advantage in day to day usage.