So all other lenses have zero flaws? Try putting a lens through PT Lens, for example, and see what happens. I'm more amused that someone voicing an opinion so loudly in a pro MFDB forum doesn't seem to know that, or at least seems to ignore it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you misunderstand, and I never implied any lens was perfect. I assumed, that like me, anybody reading the posts would know that as fact. The issue I'm raising is why Hasselblad, as a lens and camera manufacturer, would settle with a deliberate compromise, which others have described as flaws, BECAUSE you can fix them in software. Look at it another way: Hasselblad have produced their first lens which REQUIRES THEIR software to get a satisfactory image. While I agree with Dustbak that using software is important in the quality of the final image, I look at this and still think that this isn't very much of an advance in lens design - IMO, seems they've given up on trying to improve the optic design and materials technology, thrown up their hands in resignation, and given the problem to the software engineers!
Hasselblad were always known for excellence in the quality of their equipment, and it seems to me that this may not true in the case of this lens.
I still suspect that this decision is based on marketing strategy rather than the economics of doing the extra R&D. Nobody has supplied any evidence that the lens is actually cheaper than it would have been otherwise.
Anyway, these are just my opinions: I don't think Hasselblad are any better or worse than any other of the manufacturers in the respects we have discussed, and perhaps next, Mamiya will come out with a cheaper 28 with software correction!
