08-31-2010, 09:39 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1283282934' post='2383']
The 40-150 ED is somewhat more disappointing actually - it is (physically) longer than its FT cousin ...
[/quote]
HI Klaus,
what are you unhappy with? Just the size or is it more. Considering the size, this lens is not collapsible. Hence due to the shorter flange to sensor distance, I am not totally surprised at this. Looking at the MTF, contrast is lower than its FT cousin, but corner resolution seems improved, in particular for meridional structures. The latter could mean less transversal CA. Curious to see whether proper samples will or won't confirm that.
Joachim
The 40-150 ED is somewhat more disappointing actually - it is (physically) longer than its FT cousin ...
[/quote]
HI Klaus,
what are you unhappy with? Just the size or is it more. Considering the size, this lens is not collapsible. Hence due to the shorter flange to sensor distance, I am not totally surprised at this. Looking at the MTF, contrast is lower than its FT cousin, but corner resolution seems improved, in particular for meridional structures. The latter could mean less transversal CA. Curious to see whether proper samples will or won't confirm that.
Joachim
enjoy