Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The wording below was my own conclusion - and it means that Canon and Leica are the best 1.4/35 lenses in the world. But - as I posted earlier - IMO PopPhoto´s verbal evaluations are very ambiguous. I think that their favourite is "the lens is slightly above average in its class". All the best! Raimo photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen - -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Päivä: 21. elokuuta 2000 23:10 Aihe: Re: Vs: R lens tests (was: Re: [Leica] Re: Why M is so popular?) >Raimo Korhonen wrote: >> <snip> If you look at the charts, the Canon is slightly better at full aperture but the Leica is slightly better at all other apertures. <snip> > >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