Originally posted by pathdoc In what context - bench tests, or real-world results?
Why would anyone be concerned with bench tests for the purpose of determining ultimate image quality, unless of course shooting test patterns happens to be a primary photographic interest?
In any event, my reason for raising concerns about film era designed full frame lenses came from experience with lenses that were considered quite a bit above average on film, still good on digital APS-c, but were marginal on full frame digital due to how the sensor accepted light toward the edges and corners (loss of contrast, increased CA, and light fall off). Possibly the FF sensors have somewhat improved in that regard (relating to how the pixel lenses accept light), but the issue remains a concern.
---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 06:37 PM ----------
Originally posted by normhead In the context of what goes on in his head.
There's simply no eason for scepticism right now, given the number of FA lenses that have already been tested and have images posted.
I'm not aware of any test results of Pentax lenses on a full frame sensor with added coverage required by SR. Possibly I missed that.
In any event, the point is overall IQ into the corners not just a matter of whether light reaches the corners without a hard vignette. Everyone has their own idea of what's adequate so I guess that's just what's going on in my head. Don't be surprised, though, if a DA 300 outperforms various FA long lenses in the corners in terms of overall IQ. Not due a bias toward the newer lenses, but just a matter of how certain combinations happen to work.