Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your reply. I like you advice since the Contax lens is quite
a bit more expensive. It also makes sense that the light fall off would
be less than a non retrofocus design since the rear element is further
from the film, though I think the contax is well corrected here as I
have seen no reports of light fall off problems.
I have an important question however. Photodo reports 2% field
curvature. Is curvature evident on your 20/2.8 (not in comparison to
the zoom--in comparison to things you know are straight, like buildings,
trees, whatever)?
Thanks for your help. Unfortunately, I cannot "try the lenses out for
myself," since I am in podunk town USA and there are no decent camera
shops here, not to mention it would require not just a decent shop, but
an excellent shop to have both the Canon lens and the Contax lens in stock.
Mike
Thomas Bantel wrote:
>
> Yes, the L teles perform better. But you make it sound a lot worse than
> it is. Certainly, the performance of the 20mm and also the 24 TSE is not
> dismal. I own the 20mm and can tell you it is really better than the
> 20-35L (which I also own). The 20mm if sharp to the corners, the zoom
> isn't. I can also not see any extreme light falloff that someone else
> reported. It's certainly less than with a classical, non retrofocus
> design.
> Don't give Photodo too much weight. While I don't think they cheat,
> their numbers are flawed. The only thing that is useable is the MTF
> value in the center. Off center values are actually a mix of sharpness
> and field flatness, which is useless or at least not important for
> anything but reproductions or pictures of walls.
>
> I'd propose to try the lenses out yourself, you might be pleasantly
> surprised.
>
> Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
