Johnny Johnson wrote:
> At 04:56 PM 4/25/2007, Bill Pearce wrote:
>
>
>> Are the Canon WA lenses improved any, or are they just a victim of internet
>> bashing?
>>
>
> Well, it's certainly the politically correct thing to say - that the
> Canon wide angles are crap. If you say otherwise on some Internet
> forums you might be accused of being someone totally without taste or
> sensibilities - ...
>
This is all new since the FF sensor cameras came out. Nobody was bashing
their WAs in the film days. Thre have been a gazillion pictures turned
out by pros and seen by many of us with C WAs both before and since the
FF sensors.
I think the truth is that for something over 99.9% of all uses, they are
just fine. Only in shots of high detail subjects like landscapes taken
with careful technique and enlarged a great deal will anybody see a
difference.
More recent designs like the 10-22 are fully competitive with everybody
else on small sensors.
I just don't think we are going to see very many new FF primes. The lens
technology world has changed mightily and zooms very often are exceeding
the performance of the primes in their range in everything but linear
distortion at ehr wide ends of WA zooms. And that is so easily corrected
that it isn't the issue it used to be.
> ......
>
> So, in my opinion, most of the bashing comes from a very vocal
> minority of pixel peepers and their groupies and the lenses aren't
> nearly as bad as they're made out to be.
>
Yup. Any WA primes I use are going to be Zuikos, though, 'cause I
already have 'em and they are pixel peeper approved. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|