Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Raimo Korhonen wrote: > > Maybe it would and I would like to but I do not have a scanner. > But these two PopPhoto tests I refer are not so ancient, Canon 1.4/35 is in December 1999 and Leica 1.4/35 M ASPH is in January 2000 - of the Leica lens they say "In terms of performance, this lens is unsurpassed and seldom equalled among 14./35 mm optics." If you look at the charts, the Canon is slightly better at full aperture but the Leica is slightly better at all other apertures. BTW the Pentax 2.0/35 tested in the same issue as Canon gets better ratings than both but it is not 1.4, of course. > I do not have tests of current Nikon primes at hand but the only tests I have seen that Nikon is very good is among the 28-105 zooms - and these are not very good in general. > All the best! > Raimo > photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen Although their equipment and techniques are said to be excellent it seemed to me the way the results were displayed for the viewer in what became meaningless (to me) bar charts it appeared that there were no real differences between one lens to another. That would be the way to not loose any advertizing accounts. Everything was counterbalanced and averaged to be meaningless. "X slightly better at full aperture but the Z is slightly better at all other apertures." Was one of their favorites as I recall. Or one had contrast the other resolution or Acutance or some such thing. I just had a feeling with the two page Canon add in the beginning of the issue I was not going to be reading bad news on it in the graphs. Things were often compared against Leica as a benchmark. Markwr