Re: [Leica] Lens Tests?

["A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au>]

Dan Cardish wrote:

> But what do those numbers mean?   If one lens gets a 9.8 and another a 9.2,
> is the 9.2 lens a real stinker?   What if it was 9.7, or 9.6?   What
> numerical differences are distinguishable to the naked eye?   And what
> about thinks like 'bokeh'?   Does the 9.8 lens automatically have better
> bokeh than the 9.2 lens?  Or light fall off? etc. etc.
>
> When I saw that list of scores,  all I seem to remember is a whole bunch of
> 9 point somethings.  Were there any bad lenses listed there?
>
> Dan C.
>

Dan,
 exactly my sentiments. Those numbers are a lot of crap. What is the difference
between a lens of 9.5 and 9.6?     0.1 you say. Of course ,but what does it mean?
Was one lens 10c cheaper than the other? Did one lens have one line less
resolution ?  I can not see, how anyone can give a lens, or anything else for that
matter, a rating like this and then try to make us believe the one with 9.6 is
better.  This people are playing with themselves.

Look if I use a lens and if produces the result I like, then I rate it as a 10, if
it does not,
then I rate it as a 0.


 You ask: "Were there any bad lenses listed there?" Of course not. The advertising
revenue would also go down to a lower rating and  the Tester would look for a new
job.

The  Price versus performance rating is also a lot of crap. In this rating, a
single meniscus
(Box brownie Lens) would have to rate just about 10. The performance may be low,
but it hardly costs anything. so the rating is high. Regardless of the fact that
the results are low.

Lenses made by today's standard and knowledge are all, without exception, high
quality and performance lenses.  You may prefer one lens over the other, but that
is a personal preference. Anyone quoting values all within a small margin, is just
interested to fill some empty space in a magazine. For the really technically
minded, Erwin Puts test are the ones to read.

Regards, Horst Schmidt