23166RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Visible image degadation
- Sep 23, 2008That should be obvious.. heh.
Prime versus zoom.
The problem, is 28 isn't really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of
interior work, and composition without zoom and difficult to say the least,
since you often don't have placement luxury.
As an exterior lens, I'm sure it's a great lens to have.
I've always wondered how the MK2 stacks up against, the 10-22, since you
aren't using the outer parts of the lens with the 10-22.
Southern Digital Solutions LLC
From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Visible image degadation
Well I've tested the 28 f1.8 and 28 f2.8 against the 16-35 MKI/MK2 and
even the 28 f2.8 easily beats the 16-35 @28 for resolution and
sharpness. The 28mm f1.8 kills it.
On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:50, Sacha Griffin wrote:
> I thought the resolution displayed on the landscape was "decent".
> The shot
> was just a little fuzzy, most likely due to the obvious aberration
> all over the image.
> From what I've heard the 16-35 canon zoom, (canon, zoom, even wider)
> is a
> real hummer of a lens and a different beast altogether than this
> The portrait was a good display of the highlight priority perhaps.
> The landscape wasn't a good example of anything really.
> Sacha Griffin
> Southern Digital Solutions LLC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic