I dont think that she is leaning that far forward. She is 1.5m away and there is only .22m total DOF (approx 3.4 inches forward and 5.2 back)!She's leaning forward so her knees and eyes are pretty close to being in the same plane. What you're seeing is the drop off in resolution from the frame center (knees) toward the frame edge (eyes).In the sample photos, I looked at the models eyes to gauge sharpness and it appeard that the face is not the point of focus, the knees werereally.
She does not have to lean much forward for the focus plane of eyes and knees to match since the picture is taken from above. The focus plane is not parallel to the center column of the stool she is sitting on.I dont think that she is leaning that far forward. She is 1.5m away and there is only .22m total DOF (approx 3.4 inches forward and 5.2 back)!She's leaning forward so her knees and eyes are pretty close to being in the same plane. What you're seeing is the drop off in resolution from the frame center (knees) toward the frame edge (eyes).In the sample photos, I looked at the models eyes to gauge sharpness and it appeard that the face is not the point of focus, the knees were
-C
Page Rank of 4 suggests it's not that popular at all.
For the record, the picture Im talking about is the one with the stool and full body (knees canted in). I understand the plane, her eyes are not in the focal plane. I dont think we are talking about the same picture.She does not have to lean much forward for the focus plane of eyes and knees to match since the picture is taken from above. The focus plane is not parallel to the center column of the stool she is sitting on.I dont think that she is leaning that far forward. She is 1.5m away and there is only .22m total DOF (approx 3.4 inches forward and 5.2 back)!She's leaning forward so her knees and eyes are pretty close to being in the same plane. What you're seeing is the drop off in resolution from the frame center (knees) toward the frame edge (eyes).In the sample photos, I looked at the models eyes to gauge sharpness and it appeard that the face is not the point of focus, the knees were
-C
That's the one I'm talking about.For the record, the picture Im talking about is the one with the stool and full body (knees canted in). I understand the plane, her eyes are not in the focal plane. I dont think we are talking about the same picture.She does not have to lean much forward for the focus plane of eyes and knees to match since the picture is taken from above. The focus plane is not parallel to the center column of the stool she is sitting on.I dont think that she is leaning that far forward. She is 1.5m away and there is only .22m total DOF (approx 3.4 inches forward and 5.2 back)!She's leaning forward so her knees and eyes are pretty close to being in the same plane. What you're seeing is the drop off in resolution from the frame center (knees) toward the frame edge (eyes).In the sample photos, I looked at the models eyes to gauge sharpness and it appeard that the face is not the point of focus, the knees were
I don't see why you'd doubt it. Her eyes are roughly where the DX sensor edge would fall. Look at their resolution results at the DX border for that lens: the drop-off is massive. Maybe they have a bad copy, but with the copy they have even if her knees and eyes were both within the DOF, her eyes still wouldn't look sharp.
We're talking about the same picture all right. I'm not saying I am perfectly sure her eyes are exactly as well focused as her knees. I was merely saying that the fact that she isn't leaning forward a whole lot does not preclude that possibility. The case is close enough that I think you'd have to be there and turn the focus ring to decide. ;-)For the record, the picture Im talking about is the one with the stool and full body (knees canted in). I understand the plane, her eyes are not in the focal plane. I dont think we are talking about the same picture.She does not have to lean much forward for the focus plane of eyes and knees to match since the picture is taken from above. The focus plane is not parallel to the center column of the stool she is sitting on.I dont think that she is leaning that far forward. She is 1.5m away and there is only .22m total DOF (approx 3.4 inches forward and 5.2 back)!She's leaning forward so her knees and eyes are pretty close to being in the same plane. What you're seeing is the drop off in resolution from the frame center (knees) toward the frame edge (eyes).In the sample photos, I looked at the models eyes to gauge sharpness and it appeard that the face is not the point of focus, the knees were
-C
As the other person mentioned if could be bad edge sharpness but I have a hard time thinking that is the case here.
-C
Are you implying that popularity (as per page rank) is an indication of review quality? If so, then Ken Rockwell's reviews should be held up as some of the best in the industry
Shrunk down images like this don't help us in judging resolution, or 1:1 quality. LensTip's images were 6000x4000 straight from the camera with sharpening turned off. Yours are considerably smaller. Shrinking images down like that will make virtually any lens look good.
Of course, so do my Sigma 150-500 OS 500mm shots wide open shrunk down like that too 
What do you mean when you say "influenced by"? And what's your source?
Interesting , photozones review is a complete 180 degree turn around from lenstip review.
