Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In einer eMail vom 16.06.97 07:46:51, schreiben Sie: << Why is the king of lens testing in Europe "forced" to show differences where no differences are? >> Because readers in germany are crazy about figures. They love to say "Ooh, I own a lens which is rated 9.8..." << I would guess that a serious tester tests and publishes the results he finds, nothing more, nothing less.>> He does. But in order to provide interesting reading stuff, the results sometime are presented a litte bit over-dramatized. If you think about it seriously, a difference of 0.2 between lenses which are rated above 9 is totally insignificant. <<Also, given the constant changes in the BAS lens testing methods over the years, are the results of his tests comparable over time?>> No, they are not. Lenses overall have become better and 10.0 today is harder to get than 20 years before. <<How did you rate his comparison between Cantax G and Leica M glass?>> He said that the G-lenses were just slightly worse than the M-lenses, but all lenses were rated five stars (super). I agree with him. The difference is hardly visible at usual pics. It was the camera that bothered me (and the poor choice of G-lenses) Frank