Hmmm... I wonder how my 50mm f1.4 SSC Canon stacks up... I just got it recently, so dont have a take on it - but the shots I do have, seem pretty free of visible vignette.
Sorry - I know that partially I am just being a crap disturber but I this thread got me thinking about my own 1.4, though tis not a nikkor
"Just to clear up a little terminology here, what your seeing is really "light falloff" and not vignetting."
Do you have a source for that definition? Though what Ara is observing is probably what I know of as 'artificial' or 'optical' vignetting (as I described above) because it disappears when the lens is stopped down, the falloff in illumination according to the cos ^4 (or cos^3 if the Slyusarev/tilting pupil effect is used) is often called 'natural vignetting' as far as I was aware.
Helen, I'm sure you are correct in differentiating the two as various forms of vignetting, but in reviews of lenses for the average person this is normally referred to as light falloff. In Ken Rockwell's review of this lens, (BTW, I have been looking at this lens to buy, that's why I know where these reviews are) he says:
f/1.4: Spherical aberration lowers contrast. A lot of coma in the corners making them quite soft. Falloff
In fact he recommends to bypass this lens altogether and get the 1.8 instead.
For what it's worth I made good experiences with not taking one single source too serious. I'd rather have a look at several sources if possible, look where they agree and what doesn't fit the picture and trying to find out why things might disagree. Ken is not very fond of 50mm lenses after all and says "I no longer even own any 50mm lenses". I think that is a good reason to take his judgement with more than the usual pinch of salt.
Originally Posted by Paul_Baker
PS.: Neither vignetting nor falloff should be reagerded an exact term as used buy photographers. If you try to do so you will run into trouble faster than you can say Waxahatchie.