Hi all. Just a query. I'm just back from holiday, and this has been bugging me since I left. A few weeks ago, Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK did a comparative test of a number of 50mm lenses. I was very surprised to find the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II reported - if I'm reading their graphs correctly - as outresolving the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G even at wide apertures and, I believe, at the edges of the frame. I've always understood that the Canon nifty-fifty had the same formula (approximately) as the Nikkor AF-D version, and didn't think that it performed any better. I own both these lenses, though my camera bodies aren't really suited to a perfect comparison unless I resort to film, but AP's results seem to be, shall we say, inconsistent with my own experience of the two f/1.8 Nikkors and with other reviews. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what may have been throwing AP's measurements, or is my opinion of the Canon lens unfairly low? (I don't dispute that it's tack sharp stopped down, it's the claim of its sharpness wide open that surprised me.) Especially welcome if you read the article, obviously! Further information: I've just had a look at DxOmark's reviews of these lenses (on, arbitrarily, a 5D3 and D600). It claims that the Canon is very close to the AF-S wide open, and that by f/2.8 the AF-S has the weakest corners of the three (with the EF lens in the lead). This does not tally with my experience of these lenses, or with comments I've seen in this forum, that the AF-S lens is by far the strongest at wider apertures. I might guess that the Canon is applying stronger sharpening digitally, but otherwise I'm befuddled. Why might there be such disparity between the measurements and experience with these lenses?