Nanh wrote:
That\'s to be expected. RF lenses trades size, low distortion and C/A for worse vignetting which doesn\'t improve when stopped down.
+1 ... the tradeoffs of the projection are design choices.
+1 @ popularity of 35mm vs. 18mm. Imo, 35mm isn\'t exactly much of a wide, given that 43 is normal. Move on in to 28, 24, 21, 18, 15 territory and the story gets progressively more challenging. Not exactly rocket science, but it seems that some want to discount the increasing difficulties of such because they see a good result from their favorite RF 35mm FL.
Somebody double check, but it looks like the ZF 18/3.5 (59mm) / ZE 18/3.5 (61mm) are listed shorter than the ZM 18/4 (65mm) ... hmmm @ longer, slower and more vignetting for the RF.
But, to give fair credence to the ZM ... look at how it performs at the 10mm mark for f8. Inside 12mm (i.e. 24 x 24), the ZM takes the MTF, particularly @ the tangential, both in absolute terms and relative to the sagittal for micro-contrast.
Nanh wrote:
That\'s to be expected. RF lenses trades size, low distortion and C/A for worse vignetting which doesn\'t improve when stopped down.
+1 ... the tradeoffs of the projection are design choices.
+1 @ popularity of 35mm vs. 18mm. Imo, 35mm isn\'t exactly much of a wide, given that 43 is normal. Move on in to 28, 24, 21, 18, 15 territory and the story gets progressively more challenging. Not exactly rocket science, but it seems that some want to discount the increasing difficulties of such because they see a good result from their favorite RF 35mm FL.
Somebody double check, but it looks like the ZF 18/3.5 (59mm) / ZE 18/3.5 (61mm) are listed shorter than the ZM 18/4 (65mm) ... hmmm @ longer, slower and more vignetting for the RF.
Nov 14, 2013 at 06:08 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11933739 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
@ longer, slower and more vignetting for the RF.