Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Erwin Puts,
First & foremost, I knew I was making a leap; but, I did not
realize to what extent. Your main conclusion is quite clear;
lens testing is a profusion of confusion ;-)!
>>BAS tests are worthless in themselves<<
Why does Leica persist in distributing the BAS tests;
particularly, now that their current specs contain
MTF graphs which measure 5,10, 20, & 40 LPM.
>>one cannot compare two MTF graphs.......as every<<
>>manufacturer uses a different program.........any<<
>>comparison is impossible<<
A complete lack of standards, which at first surprises me;
however, I should know better after spending a lifetime
in computers. Voila......Year 2000 issues ;-)!
>>Comparison of lenses based on some graphs......<<
>>is a minefield<<
>>I do know the ones from Zeiss & Leica quite well &<<
>>could compare the results<<
Ah, a slight ray of hope; however as your example of the
Zeiss & Leica 50s portray..........deltas of indeterminacy
persist.
Thus, you explain with clarity , per the BAS chart, why I
should not have bought my 80 f1.4; yet, I love the results
& could not explain it. .........there is magic left ;-)!
On a final note, just out of curiosity, what DO you
think of the new R50 f1.4 Summilux?
Tom D.