That, as you say, is the pity about Canon. I purchased mine
as a demo model from the local Canon agent / workshop, and they had
specifically tested/adjusted the lens in the past, which is why I
presume
I got such fabulous performance from it.
Really, I could never figure out why people complained so, at f/2.8 at
any aperture,
at least in the centre, the lens out-resolved the sensor of my 1D
MkIIN to such an
extent as to almost cause moire patterns in textured subjects (the
bane/blessing of a
weak AA filter).
I could see very little improvement in the Mk.II version. Of course,
Zuiko Digital
lenses appear to have a better reputation when it comes to sample
variation?
and, I have read, that some OM lenses were also prone to sample
variation
in the past - do you guys know of any OM lens models to which this
complaint
frequently applied?
On 27 Mar 2009, at 3:23 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Looks like SLR Gear must have gotten a bad sample relative to your
> experience. Their 16-35 Mk.1 performed poorly wide open and
> especially
> at 35mm. It's too bad that one can get bad samples when spending
> $1400
> for a lens.
> <http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/cat/11>
>
> Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|