Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> It's at least partly the lens since other lenses have been demonstrated
> to outperform at least some Canyon wide angles on a FF Canyon digital
> sensor... although that may not be true of the latest 16-35/2.8 (version
> II). But even though the lens is at least partly to blame and can be
> bested by others it doesn't mean that it didn't perform well on film.
>
Slightly off my point. I was speaking about AF lenses from other brand
film SLR series, N, P, M, etc. and pointing out that none of these
lenses have been subjected to the test of FF sensors.
Yes, I know about the uses of MF superwide lens designs on FF Canyons,
but those are either specialized and very expensive or from that
exceptional OM series. :-) (Yeah, I know there's a nice N MF one too.)
But this has nothing much to do with what I was trying to say.
Just trying to point out that the bad rap C WA AF lenses have received
with the advent of their FF bodies might well have been the fate of N AF
WAs, if they had happened to be the one who went with FF. We simply
don't know (yet?).
That C tele's have fared well with FF, while the WAs haven't may have
more to do with telecentricity, teles being inherently telecentric, than
differences in inherent optical quality. I'm not arguing that it IS so,
only that we don't know.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|