Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 25/9/00 3:13 pm, Simon Lamb at owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us was quoted as saying: >> "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 then Horst Schmidt wrote: > 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. Can I say again a bit more loudly this time that these inane 19/20 ratings have almost nothing to do with measuring lenses and everything to do with selling magazines. I worked for many years as a hi-fi reviewer and fought not to have sub-editors add these type of snap ratings to my reviews. They are almost never the work of the reviewer and almost always the work of a sub-editor (if such folk still exists as I left publishing in 1989). Stewart Bell is one of the most highly regarded measurement reviewers with a knowledge dating back to I don't know when - put it this way, he wasn't exactly young when I knew him in the early 1980s when he worked for SLR Camera magazine. Comments about Bell like the above are needless and border on the libellous. If you were to ask the editor - as opposed to the the reviewer - what they meant by 19/20 they would give some explanation that the top mark is always advancing along with modern optical quality. Publishers love this kind of rubbish, reviewers have to live with it or not get published. I know, you know and Stewart Bell certainly knows that you can't summarise lens performance in such a manner. Read the full review; read with an eye to the reviewer's prejudices (the better reviewers will be honest and admit them); read with an eye to his experiences and comparisons. Don't read the rubbish that is used simply to dress up the review and appeal to the simple-minded magazine browser who may just become a consumer. - -- David Prakel dprakel@rochester.rr.com