When dpreview review this lens I hope they do a proper test of the macro capabilities as this is usually completely missed out of lens tests. Macro is one of the headline features of this lens and if its no good then for some people there would be little point in choosing this particular lens.Testing macro (among other things) involves looking at distortion and sharpness across the frame especially when the lens is well stopped down, f16 at least, so that you can where diffraction starts to be a big issue. If this lens can deliver good macro performance at the wide end of the zoom range then it might be ideal for natural history photographers wanting to do images of plants and other wildlife in their environment BUT it must still have very good sharpness when well stopped down.
Thauglor: I bought LR3 for its many other features. I don't like the catalog feature. I find it to be completely unnecessary. Like the article states, many of us have cataloged our images by folder, by date, or otherwise, making lightroom's catalog feature not only redundant, but annoying. It seems it 'wants' to catalog my images, and will not take no for an answer.
Would it be a big deal to browse to the photo I would like to edit, do the edit, and then simply save the edited file in a folder of my choosing ?
Doesn't seem like to much to ask for those of us that prefer to work that way.
"They won't 'let' us use the software without the catalog. Not a business practice I appreciate."
Absolutely agree with this why on earth can't they simply have the option to switch off the 'feature' so that you can just use LR occasionally without it trying to take over your existing directory structure.
I may eventually want to switch the hundreds of thousands of labelled images I have on one file system over to Lr but at the moment I just want to use its image processing capabilities on the occasional image and it seems to deliberately make this difficult.
KoKo the Talking Ape: I notice that the image captures quite a wide angle. I imagine that is because that spherical lens is designed that way. Is that required, or could you get that high resolution in a narrower field of view? Getting a very high pixel image is not all that groundbreaking if you get those pixels by taking a bigger (wider angle) image.
And is there a theoretical limit to pixels per solid angle in an image, aside from lens limitations? How many pixels are actually in the light within a given field of view?
Indeed this is the real question, its not about taking nice wide angle landscapes its about directing the camera to get very high resolution of some object or part of city, effectively with a very zoomed in view like a battery of telephoto or macro lenses. Its much less clear how this kind of design would be able to deal with that.
Could someone comment on 'random' softness that sometimes occurs with zoom lens. Most pictures with lens fine but perhaps once in about 1-200 times an area towards middle righthand side is noticably soft, no pixel peeping required. Has happened with a couple of mid range zoom lenses I've had, once in era of film and one digital. I take thousands of shots per year so this is a significant amount of shots lost and it seems unpredictable as to when it will happen, just at that particular zoom/focus combination which you can't find again to reproduce the effect. Do those computers they use to simulate how the lens will perform cover every possibility of focus/zoom and if they find a particular very small combination of focus/zoom that happens to be soft does it still get through into production?