|
Guest
Guest
|
artd wrote:
Do you mean field curvature or distortion? Field curvature issues relate to how lenses don't project images flat, causing the edges to not be in focus along with the center...this can be mitigated to some degree by stopping down to increase depth of field. But the 12-24 v2 is significantly better in the corners than the v1 at all apertures.
I did say it was about field curvature - that's what caused them to test the lens for two scenarios, one with taking FC into account and one just shooting away regardless of it (and thus wasting some potential sharpness). Needless to say, the results were not great in the second case, but they weren't stellar in the first one either. I believe that the same issue plagued the Samsung 16/2.4 lens as well. But it really only seemed an issue at 12mm. Whether the softness is only caused by field curvature is yet another question.
As far as distortion, that is the area that the v1 is better than the v2. The v2 exhibits a complex moustache type distortion. However, the distortion on the v2 is correctable in PTLens, and comparing corrected v2 images vs v1 images, the v2 comes out much better.
You do lose a bit of FOV this way, innit? I know the mk.2 is supposed to have a bit more distortion, but I'd much prefer a sharper image with a bit less FOV to a blurry wider one, any day.
Well, I'm happily married to the 16-35 AND the 14/2.8, but looks like the new concubine is set to arrive any day now!.. (courtesy of FM user rebelshooter) The 12-24 did look tempting when I was choosing an UWA, but the slowish aperture turned me off since my camera body can't do the fancy high ISO like the current cream of the crop.
|
Feb 27, 2013 at 03:58 PM |
| |
|
|