Is the 24/2 that bad?

[edwardkaraa]

http://kurtmunger.com/24mm_wide_angle_comparisonid131.html

Very strange results from an otherwise excellent reviewer. I know for a fact my lens doesn't show the blur at zones B and C as in the review.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Could be a problem with his methodology. If you focus a flat plane at the center and then swing the camera to reposition the center in a corner you end up moving the plane behind the subject. A little bit of field curvature on the zooms may partially hide this on those lenses. He really needs to focus on the corner if that's where the subject is. (And this almost certainly requires an M screen and good visual acuity for any accuracy.) Or maybe he does everything right and has a lemon on his hands. Who knows, without him actually explaining his method it's impossible to know.

The amount the plane is shifted can be huge with a 24mm lens.

 

[Tony Beach]

Seems like he has a poor copy.

 

[fotografz]

http://kurtmunger.com/24mm_wide_angle_comparisonid131.html

Very strange results from an otherwise excellent reviewer. I know for a fact my lens doesn't show the blur at zones B and C as in the review.

Mine either ... but I sent the first one back and got a better copy.

-Marc

 

[lightdreamer]

Kurt Munger is definitly wrong with his test for the f2 24mm IMHO.

Where ever the problem comes from, but his results do in no way correspond to practical experience in this case.

I think he is doing a systemic error by simply turning the camera and not readjusting focus. That may have improved results for lenses that have a heavier curvature of field and decreased the result of the CZ 2 24mm.

But it is only my opinion...

BG