Krosavcheg wrote:
Btw, if I may pick your brains: Could all of you who can be bothered share their EOS adaptor info by any chance? Would be eternally grateful. Reason being, is that my "vanilla" adaptor seem to produce a lot of fringing in high contrast areas (metal reflections, etc)...
Swappo wrote:
Those pics cannot have been shot with the Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4 unless you have added the distortion in post processing.
The 35-70/3.4 does not show that much distortion.
I commented that they looked to me like they were taken with a fisheye lens, but nobody else seemed to notice...
buggz2k wrote:
Iie, I have not.
Though, I have not really looked.
What tests do you propose to look for this?
I will try them.
Well, I obviously note CA around reflecting surfaces. Another problem is that sunshine in Japan is so strong, the white surfaces brightly lit tend to glow a lot...but I am not sure if that depends on the lens or just the condition itself..
Thanks - appreciate the comments and interest - had a overcast/stormy morning and I kept waiting for the clouds to drip down but they stayed high - I started to pack up the camp and when I turned around to look up the hole valley was engulfed in cloud cover - it only lasted about 5-7 minutes and they cleared out. Sitting in front of a monitor is a waist of time. Gotta get out - gotta be there to experience it!
Mark
Yes, thanks to Reinhard!
I hope it will perfom as well as yours.
My previous copy focused way beyond infinity and had huge field curvature WO, nothing like the shots you showed in this thread.
I think the results like mine are more the rule than the exception, so I am sure yours will be fine, Benjamin. I haven't heard to many stories of poor IQ out of these units. And the more I use it, the more it impresses me!
Here are a couple more quick snaps for the thread:
