>>3827440>No, it doesn't. Not even at 800% in PS.Pic related. CA? or not CA?
>In this case.Usually the case when you forgo an opticla correction, for a greater benefit elsewhere.
>[CITATION NEEDED]If you specify them to the same resolution, then yes, a smaller element will be cheaper to manufacture, all else being equal.
>But it's not sharper. It's about even except in the corners, where it's worse.Only in the test where you denied it its distortion correction.
>No, I do not have to consider a review that was mis focused.There was no midfocus, only upset DSLR fans.
>English isn't your first languageYou claimed the Samyang lenses will be unprofitable due to nobody wanting them.
And at the same time you claim it's inevitable they will be ported to RF.
You're just being retarded at that point.
>>3827442>Who told you the eye was the benchmark for accuracy?I never said the eye was bench mark for accuracy, Are you getting desperate?
>But there is a profile for the EF ART.If it's inside the lens and applied by the camera, then apply it, sure.
But one of you faggots tried to argue you could use the entire lightroom suite to post rocess it as you wished.
>>a metal can is all there is to building a lensA metal barrel is all there is to porting a lens.
You already have the optics.
You already have the electronics and AF motor from the first 2 AF RF lenses.
Are you a retarded 5 year old or something?