I hope that didn't come off as argumentative. I was asking. In re-
reading the quote attached to your email it sounds like I'm being
puffy about it. I don't doubt that Canon makes fine lenses in the
telephoto ranges. You can't see a group of working press without
seeing a bunch of them in use. And I know there are physical laws
that make rectilinear wide-angle lenses problematic. I was mainly
just asking if it's really the case that nobody makes an exceptional
wide-angle lens that doesn't experience noticeable light fall-off and
softness in the corners at wide apertures.
I run an 18mm and a 22mm on my cinema cameras. The prism in one of my
viewfinders had darkened considerably (I'm having it replaced right
now) and the dim viewfinder really made faults in those two lenses
obvious. I'd get film back and it looked fine, but through the
viewfinder the darkened corners were very obvious. It's just made me
a little hyper-sensitive about the issues revolving around wide-angle
lenses. FWIW, I shoot with the Zuiko 18mm a lot and seldom notice
problems on the negatives or prints, but I know digital can be a lot
more revealing when it comes to shortcomings.
On Jul 29, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Stephen Scharf wrote:
> No, I am not. As CH as pointed out, the wide-angle zooms of many
> manufacturers exhibit light-fall off and softness in the corners
> when shot at larger apertures, not just Canon's. What I am saying is
> that they are not "weak" lenses because of this. I'm also saying that
> the problem on a 1Ds full frame sensor is more noticeable because
> the 1Ds full frame digital sensor has more resolution than 35 mm
> film. It is markedly less of a problem on a 1.3X or 1.6X sensor. My
> point still holds, the Canon 70-200/2.8L, 300/2.8L and 500/4 L IS
> rank amongst the best lenses anyone has made at any time.
>
> -Stephen.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|