Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:24 14/02/99 +0100, Alan wrote : >Dominique, > >It is also interesting to note that the '87 report added in the right >column for the 80R: QUOTE "...in absolute terms its performances do not >quite equal those of some of its competitors..." UNQUOTE. > >The '87 test concluded the test with a 3 star evaluation on optical >performances, just like this month's. But it also gave 3 stars for the >quality/price ratio (against 2 this month). > >So, regarding conclusions, the inconsistency seems quite minimal. It >must be reminded that CdI accepts the idea of modifying evaluations and >ratings through the years (otherwise a simple reprint of the 1st tests >of an unchanged lens would have been quite enough). > >In the '87 tests, the graphs for the 80R and the 75M show an advantage >to the 75M, which is confirmed by the LUG's own absolute testing >institute (aka Erwin), but which was not commented upon in the editor's >text, and did not alterate the 3-star rating, of the time. This had >puzzled me since then... > >For the 80R, the graphs of '87 are exactly the same as in '99 for center >performance but seem to loose almost 1 'bar graph point' at each >aperture on the edges. > >I do not have the '98 75M test form, but I suspect the graphs at medium >apertures will be the same as in '87, which would have objectively >justified the 4th star in the performance rating of the time. Can you >check ? > >Alan > > ########## Alan, In the 96' test (and NOT '98 as I wrote previously), the 75 has a bar chart which coincides with the evaluation of the the 87' test. But the lens gets one more star for the performance ! I know that the optical design of both the lenses is the same. So I wonder why the performances are not comparable. Maybe the 5 mm between 75 and 80 ? Dominique Pellissier