Totally agree. A 2.8 zoom lens covering pretty wide angel to mid-tele and equipped with 18 pieces glass and many aspherical elements, is not easy make perfectly when compared with the simpler primes or zooms without extended lens barrels. Usually the lenses with best corner resolution are most criticized for decentering, because once there is a tiny decentering, it is so easy to see when compared to the other corners. Mirrorless makes pixel peering much easier than DSLR because of the very accurately focus and manual focusing friendly e-viewfinder.
My understanding is for such a standard zoom, boarder/corner quality at wide end is more important than tele-end. You can always crop to make it longer but not wider. Exchanging lens is a headache and time/energy consuming. So I will keep a decent one even the tele-end has some slight imperfection. You will never know what will be the next one like.
My new test showed my lens is good from 24-66mm, At 60-66, even wide open, the boarders are sharp when shooting 200mm away. it shows increasing decentering from 67-70mm. But this only affect foreground, because the outward field curvature aggravates the effect of slight decentering. I found focusing wide open, then stoping down really makes the boarder/corner sharper..
Fred Miranda wrote: stevesanacore wrote:
I\'ve probably said this before, but I\'m still having a hard time understanding why Sony continues to have this issue with it\'s lenses. Are they that inexperienced that they keep screwing up the design or manufacturing techniques? Are Canon and Nikon\'s techniques such a secret that they can\'t match them? With Zeiss as their partner you\'d think they could solve these troubles. Or maybe, it\'s just us being too picky? Maybe 99% of their lenses that we find fault with are sold without complaints?
