[Klaus]

Technically it doesn't really matter all that much. I do somehow suspect that f/22 is actually f/16 (and f/2 may be actually f/1.7 or whatever) or so but from a user perspective the images are still sharp at f/22 thus the measurements reflect this. The only relevant aspect is probably just a lack of depth-of-field.



Klaus







[quote name='mst' timestamp='1294152712' post='5345']

Yep. That would be Nikon's part. To make a Tamron lens look better in lens reviews. Makes much more sense, doesn't it?







Of course I can not see if f/22 is really f/22, but I can see that the aperture closes more with any stop I choose, the exposure changes accordingly, the exposure data is the same as with similar lenses (like the AF-S 60). So, to my eyes, this lens closes down to f/22.







From all the ideas I already had (believe me, I've spend endless hours with this lens already ... and a few of its cousins) this is the only one I couldn't check. Send me the Canon mount version (and a Canon camera) and I'll check.



However, I'm afraid, I already know the outcome ...



-- Markus

[/quote]