[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Studor13' timestamp='1320841313' post='12792']

If I were you I would compare the green column in the center with the same green columns in the corners.



If the 18-55 II and VR were twice the resolution to that of the 18-35, there would be significant differences.



Now look at the 35 f/2. You will see that there is such a difference in the corners.



As I have said over and over again, the corner performance of the 18-35 can not be, and is not, as bad as that claimed by PZ if you look at my links.



You tell me how could the 18-35 can get a value of 992 yet the 18-55 gets 1926 when they look almost identical right through out the frame?



According to PZ, the 35mm f/2 at f4 gets 1827 in the corners and yet there is a significant and noticeable difference between center and corner performance. 1827 is way way bigger than 992 but only a bit less than 1926.



Do you get it now?

[/quote]

I told you before, and I will tell you again. The image you keep on referring to has TERRIBLE center resolution (18-55mm VR) This image is NOT IN FOCUS. So you can keep on pointing to that image as being representative, and then comparing a very weak image of the 18-35mm with it. But it never will be a strong argument in any way.



1. The image from that 18-55 IS NOT IN FOCUS/super super soft.



2. The image of the 18-35 does NOT show in any way show better performance than the PZ MTF results show.



Why don't you address those two issues, instead of running in circles?



For comparison, the center cropped (100% pixels) from a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC on a Canon EOS 450D (12mp APS-C).

35mm f2.8 (wide open). Tested on PZ on an EOS 350D. PZ MTF:

[img] http://www.opticallimits.com/images/8Rev...28/mtf.png [/img]

Center crop: