Carl Zeiss Touit 32 mm f/1.8
8. Vignetting
| JPEG | RAW |
| f/1.8 | f/1.8 |
|
|
| f/2.0 | f/2.0 |
|
|
| f/2.8 | f/2.8 |
|
|
In the case of JPEG files, at the maximum relative aperture you have to take into account the loss of 25% of light in the frame corners (-0.84 EV). The stopping down to f/2.0 improves the situation just slightly because the vignetting decreases to 23% (-0.77 EV). By f/2.8 that aberration remains still noticeable, amounting to 17% (-0.53 EV). Its value becomes negligible (10%) only by f/4.0.
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You get to know the real vignetting level only after the analysis of RAW files. Looking at the results there are no reasons to be satisfied. At the maximum relative aperture the light fall-off in the frame corners goes as high as 45% (-1.72 EV). The Fujinon 1.4/35 within the margin of error got the same result by f/1.4. Like in the case of JPEG files, on stopping down to f/2.0 you see the vignetting decrease by just 2% to a value of –1.62 EV. By f/2.8 that aberration is still visible, amounting to 23% (-0.76 EV). Only by f/4.0 and f/5.6 you can speak about a not very bothersome level, with the vignetting amounting to 16% (−0.50 EV) and 12% (−0.38 EV) respectively.
To sum up the tested lens didn’t exactly distinguish itself in this category. Mind you it is more expensive than the Fujinon 1.4/35, slower and bigger – we had every right to expect a better performance but it fell short of our expectations.
 |
