Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Pop Photo tests are worthless. They consistently get it wrong. They don't' >design lenses, and they have advertisers to make happy. BAS tests are much >more reliable and consistent with what I hear people saying from using >lenses in the real world. The BAS testing institute (actually only one person) uses a method of lens evaluation that is seriously flawed. The results are not considered to be of any value by lens designers themselves. The use of nice graphics and the idea of continuity (the graphics have not changed since the beginning, but the test methodology is twice revised!) are certainly pleasing for the eye. The factual content however is very low. The POP Photo methodology is optically sound. They analyse a lens on five or six parameters they deem important and then use a weighted average to arrive at the SQF values. It is the selection of parameters and this weighting that undervalues the Leica lenses in most cases. What they measure and the way they measure it are in itself correct. My vote for the best lenstests? The British Journal of Photography (only if Geoffrey Crawley does the tests). My second best vote? The German magazine 'ColorFoto', if they give you the background details. They use MTF analysis, howver, which some of the LUG members do not favour. Their latest test analyses macro-lenses. In the 100mm category the order is: Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 2,8/100 Contax Zeiss Makro-Planar 2.8/100 Nikon Micro-Nikkor 2,8/105 Canon EF 2,8/100 Macro. The 50mm lenses are not so good. They are designed 20 to 30 years ago and do not take into account recent advances in optical theory. The best here is less that the last of the 100mm's. The order: Contax Zeiss Makro-Planar 2.8/60 Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 2,8/60 Minolta MD-Macro 3,5/50 Nikon Micro-Nikkor 2,8/55 Erwin Puts