Hi, JCO wrote:
> a "fisheye" with almost no distortion? Isn't that an oxymoron? I get the impression that they mean distortion other than the fisheye effect. Maybe someone more optically unchallenged, based in Finland, would like to contribute? In any case, the study is a waste of time and effort. They explicitly state (can't quote as it is a .pdf document) that they used only one example of each lens but, from previous work, there is very large sample to sample variation. As some of the lenses which came best in the tests are made by the company whose site the page is on, I have to say that this is poor science at best. At worst, you can draw your own conclusions. mike p.s. apologies if this has already been discussed but I am working from the archives which seem to be a tad slow these days.
