[Leica] scientific lens testing is ridiculous?

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Mike wrote in part:
>For the record, camera lenses are for taking pictures. The whole notion
>of scientific performance evaluation of lenses is more than faintly
>fatuous. It's _photography_. In photography, to paraphrase Ctein, if you
>can't see the difference, it doesn't count. The way to evaluate
>performance is on performance...literally, how the lens performs for you
>when you use it.

This is in it itself a very old discussion topic. And I am most 
surprised this topic never seems to rise above the obviously easy 
dichotomy between artistic photography versus image performance.
And as most people are  more versed in taking pictures than in 
evaluating lenses the majority of photographers (and some magazine 
editors) hold the position that the only correct way of evaluate a 
lens is to see how it performs in the personal type of picture taking 
and compared to one's own individual set of performance parameters.
I never made any negative or pejorative remark about this view. I 
fully respect it. There are just several ways to analyze and evaluate 
an optical system. And none is more superior than the other. The user 
view is very good for the  person who needs this perspective. The 
scientific analysis is suited for people who want to know how a lens 
performs in optical terms. This scientific evaluation is done 
continuously by all lens manufacturers, so to say this act is "more 
than faintly fatuous" is a slight overstatement. Why can a person who 
feels inclined to the user perspective not be a bit tolerant to 
anyone who wishes to do a scientific test? I am a bit amazed that 
Mike, who in many postings and articles refers to his personal lens 
evaluations, denies the validity of a performance test of a lens 
according to measurable criteria.
In my view there are several logical options here.
Fact 1: we have lens tests done according to optical criteria and 
resulting in an aberration report and as example an MTF graph. These 
tests are useful for anyone who wants to know the optical quality of 
a lens.
Fact 2: we have user reports of lenses, which report on many user 
related characteristics of a lens, related to practical demands.
Opinion 1: both types of reports are valid and may in some ways 
complement each other. It is for any user to choose what type of 
report (s)he needs for choosing and using a lens.
Opinion 2: I am aware of both types but the scientific one does not 
interest me. OR I am aware of both types but the user oriented  one 
does not interest me
Opinion 3: only the user reports are useful and scientific lens 
testing is fatuous.
In any normal discourse opinions one and two would be the most 
promising for a continuation of the discussion and may even reach a 
certain consensus.
Opinion 3 is damaging to any rational discourse and so self defeating 
in the end. By negating and ridiculizing the work of thousands of 
optical designers all over the world, by denying that the performance 
of any lens might be studied according to objective criteria and 
measurable parameters and by denying that the scientific data may be 
of some importance for the quality of the photographic image, Mike 
commits intellectual suicide.

Erwin