08-11-2010, 08:16 AM
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1281490119' post='1658']
Thanks for your reply. I have no doubt that the M8 and M9 sensors have trouble (due to their outdated designs) when dealing with light hitting from high angles of incidence, especially on their larger sensor areas. I'm still puzzled how this issue could be there on the more modern and much smaller mFT sensors, especially when there's no sign of this happening when looking at the amounts of vignetting.
As for the Voigtländer 15mm issue on digital M... again I think it's a result of the M sensors being bad. For example, here's the same lens (but in SL mount) [url="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1.html"]hack mounted[/url] on 5D MkI and compared against the Sigma 12-24:
[url="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1b.html"]http://www.16-9.net/...5mm_test1b.html[/url]
On the more modern and smaller mFT and Nex APS-C sensors, I expect it to perform even better.
Interesting stuff, Wim... thanks for adding. Like I said to Klaus, I'm still puzzled how none of these are reflected in the vignetting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
GTW
[/quote]
The latter I think purely because the 50 is an F/2 to start with, has a relatively narrow AoV, and is not a retrofocus lens...
BTW, looks like 16-9.net had an exceptional 12-24 for testing.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Kind regards, Wim
Thanks for your reply. I have no doubt that the M8 and M9 sensors have trouble (due to their outdated designs) when dealing with light hitting from high angles of incidence, especially on their larger sensor areas. I'm still puzzled how this issue could be there on the more modern and much smaller mFT sensors, especially when there's no sign of this happening when looking at the amounts of vignetting.
As for the Voigtländer 15mm issue on digital M... again I think it's a result of the M sensors being bad. For example, here's the same lens (but in SL mount) [url="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1.html"]hack mounted[/url] on 5D MkI and compared against the Sigma 12-24:
[url="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1b.html"]http://www.16-9.net/...5mm_test1b.html[/url]
On the more modern and smaller mFT and Nex APS-C sensors, I expect it to perform even better.
Interesting stuff, Wim... thanks for adding. Like I said to Klaus, I'm still puzzled how none of these are reflected in the vignetting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
GTW
[/quote]
The latter I think purely because the 50 is an F/2 to start with, has a relatively narrow AoV, and is not a retrofocus lens...
BTW, looks like 16-9.net had an exceptional 12-24 for testing.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....