> > > "The colour is accurate and contrast is punchy without being too hard. The > > > lens holds shadow and highlight detail very well, which it should if its > > > intended for the flatter needs of digital cameras. Light dispersion > > > throughout the aperture range is excellent, with no vignetting, at least as > > > far as I could tell. Even at f/1.8 the depth of field is fairly deep, > > > especially at the upper reaches of the lens's distance scale, and I had no > > > problem achieving satisfying results in low-light conditions. Where shallow > > > depth of field is needed, on close up subjects, for example, the nine-blade > > > iris provides a very attractive blurring." > > > > Chasseur d'Images was not so impressed. > > The lens at the corner is a low performer. > > Hmmmm, could this be indicative of quality control problems? Two samples with > two different results? > > Bob
"Even at f/1.8 the depth of field is fairly deep," and "Where shallow depth of field is needed ... , the nine-blade iris provides a very attractive blurring." Sounds contradictory to me. What now, is DOF fairly deep or shallow? And the whole paragraph (see above) just sounds like a sales pitch. Chasseur d'Images has an excellent reputation for lens tests and technical reviews. I'm not so sure about Amateur Photographer, Popular Photographer, the likes of Shutterbug. Lars -- Lars Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] 87GT http://www.larsmichael.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
