Now where did I put my "I agree with Chuck" T-shirt? Dawid indeed got
a good one. There was longstanding very common grousing about the
Mk1--( esp in the 16 to 24 range ) perhaps part of the reason the zuiko
21 F2 price went through the roof. Sample variability seems to be a
theme with some of these Canyon WA zooms:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1740_nikon1735/c1740vn1735a.html
I would have thought "L" means we "Looked" at it before sending it out
the door. Wasn't it Angeniux that sent out MTF data on each individual
lens?
Seems to be very little but praise for the Canyon Tel zooms. Perhaps
they are more tolerant of small manufacturing variances, but I don't
know.
Mike
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/
|