>>3876181>Got some example photos where it's been an issue?Here you go, just snapped this for you. This is the Voigtlander 25/4. The lens is sharp as hell across the entire frame when used on a film camera...even wide open. It doesn't vignette at any aperture either.
>My point isn't that it's entirely made up, but that it's not a *serious* problem. It's something that shows up:>* At 100%Wrong, you can see the purple fringing before even clicking this tiny thumbnail.
>* In the cornersYes, but it extends pretty far into the frame.
* When shooting wide open (or close to wide open)
>Wrong, it happens at all apertures. This was taken at F11>How often do you take a picture wide open where the details in the far corners are make-or-break to the shot? Most of the time, if you're using a wide aperture, that shit's gonna be out of focus regardless, so it doesn't really matter.Wrong. Look how much you have to crop in or do editing fuckery with to fix the sky. Wide angle lenses are used to typically fill the frame with detail. You simply can't use these lenses on a sony camera and shoot how you would typically shoot with them. With landscapes you get fucked up foregrounds and weird sky corners. With street, architecture, etc you get blurry, weird foregrounds.
>If you weren't looking at side-by-side comparisons showing the "problem", you'd never notice it.If you can't notice it in the image I'm posting then I dunno what to say. I'm not even a pixel peeper...but I simply don't use any of my m-mount lenses wider than 35mm on my Sony because the image quality is so disappointing compared to how those images perform on film cameras.
