somersettr wrote:
The DIgital Picture comparisons are made with lens corrections disabled. This is useful to a degree in that it tells you something about the quality of the lens but all the images we make are made with lens corrections. It could well be that one lens has easily corrected defects whilst another does not. An example would be where one lens has transverse chromatic abberations (easily corrected) whilst another has logitudinal CA (v. hard to correct). Lot s of other causes for loss of sharpness may vary in how easily they are corrected.
So, everybody may be right! What matters to me is what the images look like when they have been processed with lens corrections.
By the way, using lens correction profiles for other lenses doesn't seem like a particularly sensible thing to do.
there is still no correction profile for the 300, and in any case I don't apply it, the results are that.
As said if needed I publish RAW (100mb) or DNG compressed by ADC.
I doubt it is much variability between 300mm specimens, I am more inclined to think the variability is in the TCs.
On the 200-600 I found some on one specimen (I have one and 2 others at the agency) that I sent back for a better one, the others are almost identical, there are very small variations but where one sins in one area it does better in another, however things perceptible only at 200%.
Feb 29, 2024 at 06:16 AM
Previous versions of _MacTwin_'s message #16484945 « New Sony 300mm f2.8GM with TC's »
