Interesting responses, I guess QC might be a part of it. I print on Ilford Multigrade RC glossy. Now I forgot to mention that I had a B+W UV filter on the lens, along with the dedicated hood. I generally don't use uv filters but this one came with lens and I do not have anywhere to store it, so I put it on the lens and forgot about it. I will print some 11*14 negs with out the filter and report back. Looks like I'm have to go out for a shoot, nice :)
-Dan R Sriram wrote: > > Stefan Behrens wrote: > | I think Canon has a problem with their 24mm and 28mm lenses. > | The 2.8 ones are pretty sharp in the center but rather soft > | at the edges. But they are not USM. > > There are some complaints about the occasional 24/2.8 not being sharp, > but it seems to be an infrequent but genuine problem. Looks like QC > problems at Canon with this one. > > | The 1.8/USM is generally not so good, trusting the MTF figures at > | photodo.com. Wide open and at 2.8 the figures are really bad. > | At f8 and f4, even the "consumer" zoom 28-135 USM does better. > | So not really what you'd expect from a fixed lens of that price. > > Don't rely much on photodo MTF charts. They only test ONE single lens, > and that at infinity. If they'd tested 10-20 samples then the numbers > would make sense. > > | It seems to be really difficult finding a good 28/24mm for EOS. > | I'm wondering about the newer 3rd party lenses. > | Does anybody have realiable figures for them? > > I've been using a Canon 24/2.8 and I must say the quality is > excellent. I've made 12x16" and 16x20" B&W prints and I'm truly > impressed with the corner to corner sharpness and contrast. The > enlarging lens and printing paper matters a lot. For these tests, I > use a Rodenstock rodagon 50/2.8 and print on Agfa classic glossy. > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
