FWIW, below is a link to a thread discussing the performance of the new lenses, as well as the 40mm, which one user liked while another found had too much coma and astigmatism for his use.Yes, I know. That is why, for example, I am very satisfied with the very good 14-24mm zoom that I bought in the spring. It combines multiple lenses at the wide end (14-19-24mm), saving me weight and space in my bag.. a 40mm lens would actually do a similar service instead of 35mm and 50mm lenses - it would save me weight and space in my bag. Both solutions seem good/economical to me.
Peter
I provided the link for any who might be interested in the question, though it’s nice to know the parameters of your photographic interests.
I use it on a D810 and I don't have that problem. Anyhow, if you use it as intended at F1.4 where it is one of the best "standard" lenses wide open on the market, that becomes a moot point.
Yes. If you're using it on a dslr body then you have to be aware of this problem, but mirrorless bodies self correct it.
True, the lens is designed for dslrs which focus wide open, but a mirrorless that focuses stopped down won't see this problem.
Unless you plan on shooting it wide open a lot you could have them set it at your favorite aperture.
It's certainly been better than the Epsons I used to own in that I don't need to run nozzle checks and often cleanings every day, but it does require the occasional head replacement, but I can safely go for weeks without printing anything and still have clean nozzle checks. It doesn't like really stiff or thick paper though whereas the Epsons (9600, 9800, 7800, 4800) I've owned had no problems with them (except the 4800 which has a cured printing path).
