Originally posted by tibbitts That table is interesting but it's not reflecting my experience in terms of consistency between corners. Maybe that's worse with zooms at various focal lengths, but even with primes. I'd say only my macro lenses are pretty consistent between corners (and they also have relatively low corner falloff.) So while the best corners are usually pretty good for most lenses, that doesn't really help in real life when you have four corners to deal with, and at least a couple of them are pretty terrible.
Looking at John Rileys tests in e photozine there is indeed zooms that are that bad at certain focal lengths. And his measurements are edge not corner. for instance here the FA24-90 @ 24.
I would be shocked it that was the standard for the latest glass.
But think about this in perspective of what this thread is about;
Even if the entire FF area outside the apsc rectangle was at 50% resolution of the apsc rectangle the comparison would be ;
apsc image = amount of lens information within the apsc rectangle converted to digital via 24 mpixels
FF image = 1.6 times the information within the apsc rectangle converted to digital via 36 mpixels
( the 1.6 arises from the apsc rectangle plus a further 1.2 times that area at 50% resolution. So 1 + .6)