Looks like SLR Gear must have gotten a bad sample relative to your
experience. Their 16-35 Mk.1 performed poorly wide open and especially
at 35mm. It's too bad that one can get bad samples when spending $1400
for a lens.
<http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/cat/11>
Chuck Norcutt
Dawid Loubser wrote:
> I've used both, but the Mk.1 was what I used the longest -
> An absolutely wonderful lens whose only shortcoming is poor corners
> at 16mm. It makes up for that by being, even at f/2.8, very sharp in
> the center
> and about half-way out into the image.
>
> Also, at 35mm even wide open mine was razor sharp. But more so, the
> colour and
> contrast was great. So yes, it was not a perfect lens, but in my
> opinion the reports
> of it performing poorly on the net was greatly exaggerated, I won't
> know who the heck
> pixel-peeps in the corners in anwyay - but in all other respects, a
> world-class lens.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|