Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
We've got a new distortion record
#11
If you would be in Germany I could you send the 24F1.8. It is a very tele centric design so the borders are well for a wide angle.


Actually I think the 16-50 is heavily design to be corrected. I don't believe that people with this lense will print that large. For them the advantage of bigger sensor like DR and low light are more important. The RX 100 has the same design philosophy and is selling very well. But a Nex 3 is cheaper.
#12
Quote:How about hte new zeiss 12mm ?
 

This one will be mine - on Fuji.
#13
Quote:If you would be in Germany I could you send the 24F1.8. It is a very tele centric design so the borders are well for a wide angle.


Actually I think the 16-50 is heavily design to be corrected. I don't believe that people with this lense will print that large. For them the advantage of bigger sensor like DR and low light are more important. The RX 100 has the same design philosophy and is selling very well. But a Nex 3 is cheaper.
 

Yes, I will provide both the corrected and uncorrected figures for the 16-50.

The corrected variant isn't that bad actually. 
#14
Quote:Yes, I will provide both the corrected and uncorrected figures for the 16-50.

The corrected variant isn't that bad actually. 
 

Klaus, I am new to the forum but Photozone helped me a lot in evaluating the available lenses.

 

I Have two Sigma zooms and Pentax K-5 II, I would like to test them and upload results to this site. If you provide testing technique and shooting sample of course.

 

 

 

This could be the way of significantly enlarging the database.
#15
While the testing procedure isn't magic, it isn't really something that is cheap enough for a DIY approach.

Quality control would be difficult at best.

#16
Could you please give us a brief overview of what things are most difficult to do?

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)