10-19-2021, 08:44 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2021, 09:07 AM by Brightcolours.)
Hi Kuznite, you weirdly rude and abusive Tokina-fan.
You keep misunderstanding the light falloff towards edges/corners in the digital age, is that on purpose to annoy us, or just deliberate ignorance?
(U)WA lenses always have shown a lot of light falloff when used on digital cameras, as have big aperture lenses. The reason I have explained already, but will do it again: most of the light fall off observed is from light loss at micro lens sensor level, not because of "vignetting".
The vignetting part can be observed when looking at "bokeh balls", it usually shows less than 1 stop at most of light loss due to "cats-eye".
This Sony lens is both UWA and big aperture, a "perfect storm" for light loss.
However, the Sony engineers have done their utmost to minimise light loss. If you would actually look at Klaus' test of said lens, you would see that the lens.... shows NO mechanical vignetting wide open at all. That is an amazing feat (not the only one for this lens, it also has very low distortion, exemplary sharpness even wide open, and very smooth bokeh).
That you keep lying about this lens being "pedestrian" and that Sony engineers "relied on software corrections" instead of engineering it better is probably because it is not a Toki... I mean Pentax product?
The easier to design lens is the Pentax one. It is less wide FOV wise, it 1 stop less fast, and no one does serious testing of Pentax lenses anyway. And even though it is more retrofocus due to the bigger distance it can sit from the sensor, and a whole stop less fast, (two reasons the angle the light hits the sensor can be a bit less extreme), it too will show significant vignetting/light loss (if anyone bothered to measure that).
Anyway, good nite kuznite, I hope you don't lose any sleep over this.
You keep misunderstanding the light falloff towards edges/corners in the digital age, is that on purpose to annoy us, or just deliberate ignorance?
(U)WA lenses always have shown a lot of light falloff when used on digital cameras, as have big aperture lenses. The reason I have explained already, but will do it again: most of the light fall off observed is from light loss at micro lens sensor level, not because of "vignetting".
The vignetting part can be observed when looking at "bokeh balls", it usually shows less than 1 stop at most of light loss due to "cats-eye".
This Sony lens is both UWA and big aperture, a "perfect storm" for light loss.
However, the Sony engineers have done their utmost to minimise light loss. If you would actually look at Klaus' test of said lens, you would see that the lens.... shows NO mechanical vignetting wide open at all. That is an amazing feat (not the only one for this lens, it also has very low distortion, exemplary sharpness even wide open, and very smooth bokeh).
That you keep lying about this lens being "pedestrian" and that Sony engineers "relied on software corrections" instead of engineering it better is probably because it is not a Toki... I mean Pentax product?
The easier to design lens is the Pentax one. It is less wide FOV wise, it 1 stop less fast, and no one does serious testing of Pentax lenses anyway. And even though it is more retrofocus due to the bigger distance it can sit from the sensor, and a whole stop less fast, (two reasons the angle the light hits the sensor can be a bit less extreme), it too will show significant vignetting/light loss (if anyone bothered to measure that).
Anyway, good nite kuznite, I hope you don't lose any sleep over this.