>>3827447>Pic related. CA? or not CA?Looking at the corners are we? Well the DG DN is worse. Pic related.
>Usually the case when you forgo an opticla correction, for a greater benefit elsewhere.>make a lens worse and correct in softwareFine, but the lens is still worse.
>If you specify them to the same resolution, then yes, a smaller element will be cheaper to manufacture, Depends entirely on element material and shape.
>Only in the test where you denied it its distortion correction.>distortion correction can produce information where there was noneLOL
>There was no midfocusIdk about "midfocus" but it was mis focused.
>>English isn't your first language>You claimed the Samyang lenses will be unprofitable due to nobody wanting them.English isn't your first language
>I never said the eye was bench mark for accuracyYou just implied it.
>>But there is a profile for the EF ART.>If it's inside the lens and applied by the camera, then apply it, sure.>IT HAS TO BE INSIDE MUH LENZ!!!Idiot.
>>>a metal can is all there is to building a lens>A metal barrel is all there is to porting a lens.>not electronics>not testing>not marketing>not support training>not supplies>not manufacturing lineskek
>You already have the electronics and AF motor from the first 2 AF RF lenses.>motors are identical in every lensKEK
>Are you a retarded 5 year old or something?I'll ask you again: do you even own a camera?
