In article <5j3cfg$fk3$2@hpax.cup.hp.com>, dtran@cup.hp.com says...

>Do size affect performance? Look like the
>larger the lens, the poorer it performs.
>
>50f2 is almost always sharper than 50f1.4
>for the 35mm format regardless of brand.
>
>35mm RF lens are sharper than 35mm SLR
>and RF lens are universally smaller than
>SLR's lens
>
>50mm lens are always sharper than its MF cousin
>lens.
>
>See the pattern?

Um, no...;-) While it is often true that the slower version
of a lens is slightly better than the faster, it can easily be
the other way around (try the big Nikkor 300, 400, 500, and 600
lenses - or the 135 f2, 85 f1.4, 180 f2.8, etc. [and in another
well-known line, the slower lenses may often be made to lower
optical standards for marketing reasons...;-]) - and while
the rf short lens is generally an easier design job, try the
latest version Nikkor 35mm f2.8 PC, the 20mm f2.8, or the 16mm
f3.5 and see how these compare with the best of the rf wide-angles...
So I cannot agree...
Hope This Helps