The lens designers are not trying to make the lens soft! They try their very best to make it sharp, but it is very difficult.And, I have often asked myself, if the lens is soft, at f2 and sharp at f4, why?
Same with the tele zooms, sharp at 75mm, soft at 300mm, why?
I guess, some like it soft... lol not me!
There are lots of reasons and there are many introductory courses and texts for optics which go through them. Some are free, some are online, and a few are linked in my profile. To provide an ultra-succinct reduction of the maths, aberrations are high order polynomials of angle and the angles in question are primarily driven by aperture. Maintaining diffraction limited performance at larger apertures therefore becomes quite expensive and can require element counts or alternate engineering that's incompatible with photographic portability.And, I have often asked myself, if the lens is soft, at f2 and sharp at f4, why?
From an Imatest kind of standpoint, only the lens designers know and they don't seem to be saying. Extrapolation is commonly made from Cicala 2017c which, despite being a well out of dataset prediction, is probably the least undesirable option available. See also Cicala 2011.Same with the tele zooms, sharp at 75mm, soft at 300mm, why?
The 12/2 has metal construction, it has the sliding focusing ring for manual focus switching. Compare it's price to the 17/1.8 ($499) and 75/1.8 ($749) instead of the 25 and 45.I would have ask - why is it 600usd , more than double than the 25mm f1.8 or the 45mm f1.8 .
Thank you Bushboy..... the difficult part is you start out with an idea and a possible conclusion and as you test, try and document your story line gets corrected and updated. Right now I am a little in a low and have a few other things distracting me.... I hope to be done by next week....Siegfried, I’d be keen to read your interesting article?
I can't imagine anything slower, unless its specialty or cheap. I consider the P14 f2.5 both- it's really cheap, it's tiny, it weighs nothing, it's really good, and it takes the GWC converter which makes it a 11mm. So yes, it counts (I have one and will never sell it).Then you should look at the many superb pics on the P14 f2.5 showcase thread.
that is really an irrelevant and boring reply, don't you think?
We should never spend a day together
I am hoping those with higher energy levels than you
Doh! I meant the zoom ring (thinking and writing seemed to be two separated things at that time ). You are right about the focus ring of course.I believe if you look in the menu, you can change the rotation direction of the focus ring from clockwise to anticlockwise with a click or two.
If you look for the great image quality, 12mm f2 still shines. But then again, i decided to sold it since i already have 12-40mm proA year or 2 passes and we were blessed with the Panasonic 12-32 and my desires for the 12/2 went bye bye. 12mm f/3.5 with stabilization built in does it for me. I can hand hold at 1/15 of a second most of the times if I need to. And that less is also very, very sharp (even zoomed in). Plus it collapses to be nearly the size of the 14. I'm happy with it!
How do those 2 compare to each other at 12mm? I'd don't know if I've ever looked at comparisons of the 12-32 vs the 12/2 but I think I've seen some of mine vs yours and while of course yours is better it wasn't enough difference to be worth the extra size.If you look for the great image quality, 12mm f2 still shines. But then again, i decided to sold it since i already have 12-40mm pro
To be honest, I wish the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 were both built like that, too.I loved the 12mm. It's an awesome lens with great build quality. The moment you get it in your hands you know why it is expensive.
I already had the 12/2 when I decided to get aA year or 2 passes and we were blessed with the
Panasonic 12-32 and my desires for the 12/2 went
bye bye. 12mm f/3.5 with stabilization built in does
it for me. ....... Plus it collapses to be nearly the size
of the 14. I'm happy with it!