Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]DonjR43198@aol.com wrote: > As far as lens quality is concerned, I prefer the BAS type report as opposed > to a subjective comment. Further BAS explains the type of testing it does > and then reports the tests in numerical figures rather than a subjective > statement that anyone may make. Dear LUG, I noticed that some people on the group refer to the BAS lens test system when talking about "scientific lens tests". As I understand, the so called BAS test is nothing more than the lens test performed by the German journal "fotomagazin". My personal opinion is that the results of the fotomagazin BAS test are at least inconsistent, if not unscientific at all. This opinion is based on the observation of obviously absurd results for "optical quality", e.g: Leica Elmar-M 2,8/50: BAS Optics rating: 9.0/10, Zeiss Planar T 1,7/50: BAS Optics rating: 9.0/10, Tamron MF 3,8-5,6/28-200mm ASL: BAS Optics rating: 9.4/10. There are other scientific lens testers than BAS. In the WWW lens test archive, which is available from Pascal's home page, five different systems from different countries and journals are explained. Please note that in this archive, it says: "fotomagazin (Germany) was part of this archive but removed due to VERY inconsistent ratings..." Regards, Gerd