Vesa Perala wrote:
> > > How does the 35/2 "perform" compred to the 50/1.8mrk1 &f2?
>
> I haven't really compared but I quess they both vignette a bit.
Technically speaking, all lenses vignette to some extent. The samples of these
lenses tested by Chasseur d'Images returned the following results:
35/2--
Vignetting-
f/2: 0.7 stop (noticeable)
f/2.8: 0.3 stop (slightly noticeable)
f/4: negligible
Distortion: barrel distortion, 0.4% (slightly noticeable)
50/1.8 I--
Vignetting-
f/1.8: 0.6 stop (noticeable)
f/2.8: 0.3 stop (slightly noticeable)
f/4: negligible
Distortion: barrel distortion, 0.5% (noticeable)
50/1.8 II--
Vignetting-
f/1.8: 0.6 stop (noticeable)
f/2.8: 0.3 stop (slightly noticeable)
f/4: negligible
Distortion: barrel distortion, 0.5% (noticeable)
For comparison, the best vignetting figures I can find for EF lenses are:
f/2.8: 0.3 stop; f/4: negligible (TS-E 90/2.8)
f/2.8: 0.4 stop; f/4: negligible (100/2.8 macro)
f/2.8: 0.4 stop; f/5.6: negligible (100/2.8 macro USM)
f/2: 0.5 stop; f/2.8: negligible (135/2L)
f/1.8: 0.5 stop; f/2.8: negligible (200/1.8L)
Most of the telephoto lenses from 200 mm up show 0.4 or 0.5 stop wide open, and
negligible at the next largest full stop (similar to the 135/2L).
In short, vignetting in the three lenses in question is close to that of Canon's
best lenses rather than to the worst.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
