« on: July 23, 2014, 03:20:20 PM »
Unlike many Google translations, this one is a bit more readable...
I note the comment that the 16-35 mk2 was good for APS-H ;-)
The multiple aspheric lens surfaces allow them to ease some of the compromise between reducing distortion and field flatness. The two front lens elements make quite a significant contribution to this and will likely be seen again in new ultra wide zoom designs.
I still want a TS-E14 though ;-)
Actually, I was going to ask someone to translate the translation.
I have often made the assertion on DPR that the 16-35 II was designed for APS-H because 1.) it was introduced alongside the 1D III and 2.) the edge/corner performance obviously was not up to FF standards MP counts of the time period notwithstanding. Of course, I was criticized for this viewpoint (which I still hold). It looked to me like the interviewer made the reference to APS-H but the interviewees did not touch on the reference.