The lens is just amazing, and having it now, I would have easily paid 800 for it, and in fact would easily pay 800 for a 17-21mm of same quality. I guess I can just suck it up and buy the zeiss 21, or tse 17. DxO Optics Pro cleans up the images much more. It seems like Aperture only applies very basic corrections. This is obvious when comparing its output to raw converters that dont, such as Capture One Pro 7. the problem is that there are no other really good inexpensive wides. Aperture absolutely applies corrections to micro 4/3 lenses including distortion and chromatic aberration. If they made a 21mm lens of same quality and 2.8, I would sell both the sigma and the 16-35, and just keep the two primes for wider than 24. I am thinking of selling my 12-24, keeping the 16-35 for video, and b/c it takes a filter, and the gap to 24 is too much, though I am doing more panoramic shots. at f4, the corners are sharper than the other two lenses ever get. at 2.8, its sharper than my sigma is at 5.6, though about the same as canon at 2.8 for the center. at 2.8, the corners are as sharp if not sharper than the other two at f11. better micro contrast and less flare than both, ca is non existent. at 2.8, accounting for dof, it is sharp corner to corner. I was absolutely floored I was then disgusted with the other two lenses. I have two copies of this lens, and the perform Identically.
Julian, I did a test today against my sigma 12-24 and my canon 16-35 I.
0 kommentar(er)
