edwardkaraa wrote:
Excuse me but calling the 16-35 a poor lens is a bit extreme as in my own findings it should at least be as good as the Nikon and the ZF 21 in the range of 16 to 28mm, and imo probably better than both. The only weak point is at 35mm. What I\'m talking about is the very extreme corners which cover less than 1-2% of the entire image area. Have you ever used one or just making uneducated guesses?
No, I have not used one but the guess is educated and based on the statement
Usually with my 16-35, when the center focus is at infinity, the extreme corner focus can be at just around 1-2 meters only.
At 35 mm and f/2.8, such a curvature translates as a blur disk diameter of 200-400 micrometers, for the image corners when the center is in focus or vice versa. That is quite something. One would even require f/22 to get reasonably sharp corners on a 10x15 cm print.
You have a valid point that these numbers only apply to the very image corners,
where I assume that your observation is based on the final digital image and not on
the viewfinder image, but there is always a transition region where this lens must be
far from excellent.
May 05, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Previous versions of Toothwalker's message #7040852 « Pics from ZF21 »
