Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
In-Reply-To: <3.0b26.32.19961006204113.009f5c30@mail.cdsnet.net>
> >"if we were to take a Leica lens and a Nikon lens (for example), and
> >managed to find two specimens which tested exactly the same in every
> >particular that science knows how to test, does that mean that the
> images >would be completely indistinguishable? Not necessarily at all."
>
> Absolutely right, unless you really test for everything. There would
> have
> to be a difference somewhere, or they would be identical. But that's not
> possible even with modern lens manufacturing techniques. Similar lenses
> from the same manufacturer will be different, no matter how small those
> differences might be.
Careful, that paragraph from my post has *quotation marks* round it ("),
I was quoting it in order to disagree with it. If they test the same in
all respects, they look the same. I don't believe that any modern quality
lens manufacturer has production variations which affect the look enough
to be seen by the naked eye, and if they do, their manufacturing process
is knackered!
> >I wager you wouldn't be able to tell the difference but then when I
> tried >it they *didn't* test the same, that's why they look different!
>
> But as has been said over and over again, people do see the difference.
> Not
> necessarily so they can identify which lens did which picture, but that
> they are different.
People see the differences *IN LENSES WHICH TEST DIFFERENTLY*.