At 7:58 PM +0100 2/6/07, Stefan Gerris wrote:
On Tue, February 6, 2007 18:09, Henning Wulff wrote:
At 7:49 PM -0500 2/5/07, Bill Gillooly wrote:
That's pretty convincing.
Mr. Bill
Cotty wrote:
I presume you've seen this?
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml>
I've already made my mind up and will be picking up a 24mm 1.4 L in the
spring.
*
****
The 24/1.4 is fine for what it is: an
exceptionally fast wide lens, but it is hardly
outstanding. You need to stop it down quite a bit
to get sharp results in the corners. This lens is
nothing like the 35/1.4.
You guys keep in mind that the focus plane of wide-angle lenses isn't
really flat, right!?
Cheers, Stefan
If anything, the field flatness of wideangles should be better than
that of telephotos, because the dof of wideangles means that
important image components are often right out to the edges, whereas
the subject matter of telephotos is much more often concentrated in
the center with very out of focus edges.
In any case, field flatness becomes more problematic with faster
lenses, not wideangles as such. Field flatness is now achieved
relatively easily with aspherics compared to earlier, although a lens
such as the 24/1.4 does still suffer a bit from that. It has a lot of
other issues though in the corners. It certainly isn't particularly a
field curvature issue.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
