RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Optics are always a series of compromises. Even in a "no compromise" design. There are plenty of lenses that exhibit great sharpness with nervous bokeh. The distances for which "no compromise" were optimized for may not be capable of being optimized the same for mfd as infinity ... i.e. always compromises.
Imo, it is unreasonable to actually expect any lens to be perfect in every situation. A great lens is well corrected for a vast majority of the inherent issues with optics, but I don't know of too many lenses that could qualify as being perfectly corrected for all optical aberrations, under all situations, at all distances. As to the image shown ... that seems to be a small amount of compromise, rather than what I would call a defect.
Defect seems to infer that the lens should be perfect. It may indeed be the very best 55/1.4 on the planet, but that doesn't mean that it is in fact perfect. Imo, every lens has its tradeoff(s)/poison(s) ... you just pick how much (and they can get pretty small) of which ones (and few) you are willing to tolerate in your design/application.
Like Joakim points out, some things just can't be both ways simultaneously, so a compromise is a often times a necessity. Hence, "no compromise" is an excellent marketing slogan, but in optics, it is always a series of compromises somewhere ... to some degree of refinement. Reminds me of knife making @ holds an edge longer = harder to sharpen, carbon content (iirc) = brittle vs. sharp so you have to decide how you want to design the tradeoffs.
Imo, expecting anything less is delusional.
|