Jammy Straub wrote:
Does the barrel distortion decrease at a distance?
Absolutely. Its gone by 20mm. And I didn't see obvious distortion throughout the rest of the zoom range. I didn't shoot a distortion chart or brick wall or anything.
RCicala wrote:
Absolutely. Its gone by 20mm. And I didn't see obvious distortion throughout the rest of the zoom range. I didn't shoot a distortion chart or brick wall or anything.
I think he ment not at the close range you have pictured. The closer you are the more distortion right? Move back 10 feet or so and take a pic of the chart and it may not be as bad.
Ah, I stand corrected. It is still pretty visible, although of course the more distant perspective makes it less obvious. I guess my summary is I wouldn't be taking my wife's picture at 16mm. Of course, that's generally true of any ultrawide.
I was hoping it would be fairly distortion free, like the 14-24.
RCicala wrote:
Ah, I stand corrected. It is still pretty visible, although of course the more distant perspective makes it less obvious. I guess my summary is I wouldn't be taking my wife's picture at 16mm. Of course, that's generally true of any ultrawide.
I was hoping it would be fairly distortion free, like the 14-24.
@ RCicala - Yeah doesn't look like it gets much better at a distance. At least it appears to be fairly simple barrel and not some weird wavy distortion. Definitely not the end of the world. I wonder if the focal plane is bending at the extreme corners, the edges of the bricks and shrubberies looks a bit less sharp than the rest.
Guys keep the pics coming, there are a lot of us interested in this lens.
I just heard the Tokina is announced an upcoming FX wide lens so I'm going to wait for that but I'm really tempted to also just get this. But I have until April to get something before my trip to Japan.
Jammy Straub wrote:
@ RCicala - Yeah doesn't look like it gets much better at a distance. At least it appears to be fairly simple barrel and not some weird wavy distortion. Definitely not the end of the world. I wonder if the focal plane is bending at the extreme corners, the edges of the bricks and shrubberies looks a bit less sharp than the rest.
I think its just corner softness (but that didn't seem to be the case in the close up photo). I've posted the 100% image here: you can see the bricks in the upper corners are quite soft compared to the mid sides. More images required I'll try to actually do some shooting with it tomorrow.
Jammy Straub wrote:
@ Steve you have a very pretty kitty!
!
Thanks - We rescued her from our backyard. We live out in the country and late last fall this tiny little girl comes up, full of worms, and eyes almost glued shut from an infection. Got her medicated and fixed up - now she runs the house
Not that there's anything wrong with the lens itself, but I think this is the first time I've ever been able to see distortion in images (that aren't fisheyes or truly wide, like 12mm on FX).
that distortion makes my head spin. I am glad that i'm sticking with the 18/2.8. It has some slight waveform that is probably harder to correct, but SOOC it is less noticeable.
As for other lens performance, the 16-35 looks very impressive. 1/6 handheld (easily) would be awesome, although i can already do that at times with my 18.
Of course, that's generally true of any ultrawide. 