You know, your comments on that 16-35 II made me go look it up on DxO. Not only are they wrong about the lens for corner performance vs. aperture, they are also wrong relative to focal length. They show the lens wide open f/2.8 is capable of ~50 lp/mm in the corner at 16mm but only ~20 lp/mm in the corner at 35mm.
For starters, this should immediately make most people think "Hmmmmm.....an UWA zoom with better corners at the ultra wide end? Kind of hard to believe."
So then a person like me might check it. And (results below) anyone with this lens and a pair of eyeballs can see that once again DxO is wrong. I don't know about you, but when a website claims infalliable highly technical performance data and is then demonstrably wrong over and over, well, I tend to not believe anything on the site.
It's not like DxO was wrong once. They said the D90 had less noise than the 5D. I tested my 5D with my brother-in-law's D90 and we were both left scratching our heads. Then there was the non-sensical 70-200/2.8 IS II results and now these ridiculous 16-35 II results.
We should have a contest to find the most ridiculous and unsupportable DxO claims.
Anyway - here's the f/2.8 corners from my 16-35 II at 16mm and then 35mm. DxO says the 16mm corner is better. What do you think?
HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.