In <NEBBJHDDKLCJIJGKJAOMKEKJCIAA.jlamadoo@xxxxxxxx>, on 11/15/01 at
02:46 AM,
"jlamadoo, home account" <jlamadoo@xxxxxxxx> said:
>Has Pop Photo, Life, National Geo, or anyone else ever tested 30
>examples of anything to get a fix on potential variations? To be
>clear, I'm not criticising anyone, especially those who have tested
>lenses. I'm grateful for the knowledge passed down from others but I
>also took lots of statistics and we seem to have very little hard data
>on variablity. Ideas?
You've just hit upon the Achilles heel of all "lens testing." To my
knowledge, there has never been a study of variability in even a small
sample of lenses. Some camera makers, like Linhof, have a "pass/fail"
criterion [derived from the use of a collimator designed by Zeiss] for
selecting lenses sold with their cameras. But these data are proprietary
[probably for good economic reasons: their reputation for quality helps
to sell their product]. Linhof is not alone, of course. I presume
Leitz/Leica and Zeiss itself is equally fussy. But consumer
publications, Photo-doo-doo, Pop Photo? Never.
Almost any professional photographer will tell you that the only
reliable way to test lenses for your own use is to test them yourself.
This is an annoying, time-consuming and demanding task. Virtually all
consumers lack the patience to do it. Since there is no consumer demand
for such data, they are not
produced.
QED.
---------------------------------------------
les clark / edgewater, nj / usa
---------------------------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|