Originally posted by thechumpen kiwi - I viewed the pics in Lightroom at 3:1 magnification and also on the camera by just zooming as far as it would go. If I do this with my DA 35 I get perfectly sharp text.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but this test makes no sense. Is your tripod in the same place for the pictures you took for both lenses, or did you move back so that the paper occupied the same amount of the frame when you took the picture with the DA 35, as
ak_kiwi is saying? If the tripod didn't move, it's a no-brainer that the DA 35 is sharper: the paper covers more pixels.
Your test shot looks perfectly fine to me. How sharp do you expect it to be? It's a lot more difficult to make a lens as wide as this than it is to make a 35mm. I'd say it's outstanding for the price it sells for.
Here's a shot from mine @f/5.6:
100% crop of the same:
I didn't do any sort of sharpening. Yeah, it's not
that sharp when you're pixel-peeping, but you won't find anything better for even close to the same price. Besides, it's the colors and contrast, along with the extremely wide angle, that make me love this lens.