Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Simon lamb wrote: > Amateur Photographer in the UK has tested this lens and I thought some of > you may be interested in a snip from the verdict. > > "The Voigtlander 12mm is a truly excellent lens that features outstanding > optical quality that closely rivals, if not exceeds, the quality of the more > expensive Leica brand" > > There is a three page article containing quite a bit of detail regarding the > build and optical quality, the depth of field, the sharpness and the > vignetting that can occur. > > The test scores were: > > Optical quality: 28/30 > Ease of use: 27/30 > Construction quality: 19/20 > Value for money: 18/20 > > 92% test score. > > Simon Wow, what a test. To compare an existing - with a non existing lens. That doesn't happen that often. He probably has a whole cupboard full of non existing equipment, for which he paid a fortune. Hell compare all the other real equipment he receives, to the ones in his (empty) cupboard. This may be the latest way of reviewing anything and everything. Example: The new Toyota Corolla is al lot cheaper and most probably faster, than the equivalent Ferrari. Then again, the guy may just been on drugs that day, or just plain drunk, or couldn't think of anything sensible to say to fill up his paper, or, and that's my guess: He is just plain stupid. Now to the actual review: Optical quality: 28/30--- 28 out of 30. that does not give us much room for future improvement. The 30 out of 30 will soon be reached. what then? Ease of use: 27/30 Construction quality: 19/20--- Boy 19 out of 20. What does he give the 1950 and 60's Leica lenses/ 25 out of 20. Value for money: 18/20-- this is a subjective measure. If I want and need a 12mm lens, then it is 20/20, if I don't its a lot less. Really if one has to use a number system, then I could maybe understand 10 or 12 out of 20 for a test. But 18 or 19 out of 20, does not give a true picture. It implies, that in future hardly any improvement can be made. If this bloke was around in the 1950's, he would have given the Summicrons and Summiluxes 19 out of 20. What about the large improvements since? It would not fit in to his numbering system. Regards, Horst Schmidt