|
Re: da* 16-50 f2.8 artificially restricted to f2.8?
In reply to ozdean,
3 months ago
|
They do look similar in size but then the lens are moving about and stuff so really hard to tell, is it normal for the 16-50 to underexpose compared to other f2.8 zooms?
I know the T-stops of the lens can be different from there aperture but the 2/3 difference I got seems a bit much.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
