01-11-2012, 07:46 AM
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1326240687' post='14698']
Vaguely I thought you tried two samples originally and both performed badly (was that the case?)[/quote]
I often base reviews on more than one sample, however that wasn't the case here.
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1326240687' post='14698']any conjecture as to why the other lenses performed so poorly?
[/quote]
Not really. Maybe a combination of a bad element with some decentering. However, the first sample didn't show the usual signs of decentering.
I don't think that the optical design of the lens has been improved over time. Studor's copy of the lens performs more in line with the MTF charts published by Nikon (which, to my knowledge, remained unchanged over the life cycle of the lens).
-- Markus
Vaguely I thought you tried two samples originally and both performed badly (was that the case?)[/quote]
I often base reviews on more than one sample, however that wasn't the case here.
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1326240687' post='14698']any conjecture as to why the other lenses performed so poorly?
[/quote]
Not really. Maybe a combination of a bad element with some decentering. However, the first sample didn't show the usual signs of decentering.
I don't think that the optical design of the lens has been improved over time. Studor's copy of the lens performs more in line with the MTF charts published by Nikon (which, to my knowledge, remained unchanged over the life cycle of the lens).
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com