Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
<< But it is still more impossible for a consumer (and you are and I am a
consumer)to know if a product is good or not. >>
Dominique, you are correct that it is very important for us as comsumers to
get as much information as possible regarding lenses, before we purchase them.
There are many sources of information. However, so sources are not reliable.
Other sources contain information that must be taken with a grain of salt.
Other sources have useful informtion, but often that information must be
interpreted.
Erwin was correct in noting that it is important to understand the undelying
basis for the tests, such as CDI's tests.
An example is the test series by Popular Photography on the three Leica lenses
in 1994 50 1.4, 35 1.4 and 75 1.4). All three tested very poorly at the
largest two apertures. The test results were horrible at 1.4 and 2.0.
However, at the middle apertures the lenses were absolutely outstanding.
Knowing how Popular Photography tests their lenses helps explain this.
Popular Photography is very "biased" toward flat field lenses with no
curvature of field. All three of these Leica lenses have substantial
curvature of field. This makes their test results very bad at the widest
apertures.
One must look critically at the test reports in order to understand they
meaningfully.
Tom Shea
- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:27:14 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA05744 Thu, 23 Apr 98 14:48:55 -0700
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA05738 Thu, 23 Apr 98 14:48:39 -0700
Received: from TEAShea@aol.com
by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id 4EXDa12983
for <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:48:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: TEAShea <TEAShea@aol.com>
Message-Id: <9152e43b.353fb736@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:48:35 EDT
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: an objective evaluation of leica M lenses and the noctilux
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Thu, 23 Apr 98 19:40:40 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA07955 Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:33:50 -0700
Received: from [204.244.104.125] by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA07940 Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:33:10 -0700
Received: from mail.sd91.bc.ca by sd91.bc.ca (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA14667; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:22:36 -0700
Received: from ccMail by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
id AA893381424; Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:30:24 -0800
Message-Id: <9804238933.AA893381424@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:29:14 -0800
From: "Administrator"<administrator_at_elec__bus@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Cc: <Administrator@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
Subject: [Leica] Message not deliverable
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
- --simple boundary--