>>3827884>add 20 mph to the top speed of bothLens correction doesn't fix all aberrations equally. You are being a deceptive twat for trying to imply do.
That's why you play with the compromises so you end up with the least compromises towards the end.
>Who the hell told you all things are equal between the lens elements of these different lenses?That's the objective argument you're going to have to make when claiming size of optics doesn't impact cost.
The size of the optics DOES impact cost, which is why medium format optics and 600mm optics are co costly, you're the retard trying to imply otherwise.
>distorted is sharper>LOL that's not how it works.That can be how it works.you simply have fewer elements in there since you're not correcting distortions, and now that you have fewer elements, you can divert resources into making the other elements better or give them better quality control.
>No. The fringing he saw was there because of mis focus.Clearly not, This is something you reshoot again and again just to make sure the results are right.
Here is a 2nd review who confirms with Sigma and the other review.
https://youtu.be/2MJPgDAV0H8?t=584He tested without correction, and with correction. And concluded the new version is sharper than the old version.
>Very relevant because you keep claiming people have said X when they said Y, Z, or A.No, you did in fact try to argue Samyang was hesitant with sorting their 75, 45, and 35 into RF because the people there wouldn't buy them over the Canon lenses.
>I don't give a flying rat's ass what they "intend"Well you should, because that impact how the lens presents itself inside the EVF. The way the lens maker represents the lenses to the EVF is how we should be comparing them.
Because that's ultimately at they point you make the critical decisions when taking the shot.
