Optical Limits reviews RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 STM

[neuroanatomist]

Actually, that was my point. You appear to have a different point that no one could disagree with.

Mine has taken some fine images of my kids sledding in the snow when I didn’t want one of my heavier lenses on hand. Even those who insist upon the best have varying needs. I also own a 50 1.8 along side the 1.2 for similar reasons. For tue cost of sales tax on the 1.2.

Was it? You stated, “This light and inexpensive lens is not for those who insist on turning off the advanced electronic features the lens (or car) was designed for.” Do you honestly believe many people turn off corrections for distortion or vignetting, which all lenses exhibit to some degree? Far more likely, those who want better IQ will, if possible, use a lens with less of those aberrations, to minimize the decrement to IQ that results from correcting them.

 

[InchMetric]

Was it? You stated, “This light and inexpensive lens is not for those who insist on turning off the advanced electronic features the lens (or car) was designed for.” Do you honestly believe many people turn off corrections for distortion or vignetting, which all lenses exhibit to some degree? Far more likely, those who want better IQ will, if possible, use a lens with less of those aberrations, to minimize the decrement to IQ that results from correcting them.

You seem nice.