3 ms·
Well it's 50% the cost of the Nikon and looks like there's a fair number of AF problems with the 135/2 DC. Also, the 135 DC looks like it has really poor chrom
by vvanders 9y ago
Well it's 50% the cost of the Nikon and looks like there's a fair number of AF problems with the 135/2 DC.
Also, the 135 DC looks like it has really poor chroma aberration[1].
[1] https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample...
- blattimwind 9y agoThis is longitudinal aberration; visible even in the center, so the test chart isn't actually in focus.
- vvanders 9y agoNo, that's chroma aberration(of which longitudinal is a type), the Canon 100/2 exhibits the exact same purple fringing on high contrast areas. I know because it's what I moved from when I got my 135L. If that was out of focus you'd see a clean transition from black->grey on the edges and a lot more of the detail would be lost.
- CarVac 9y agoIt is longitudinal aberration, but that just means that you can't actually get all colors in focus. It can be nice for portraits but in general is a flaw.