dont know about test results skewed in favor of german glass . . . in the
same issue(this month) theres a 4-way test of hi-speed teles.
The Canon EF 200 2.8 was clearly the best of the lot: Canon=88pts.
Zeiss=81pts. Minolta & Nikon=77pts.ea.
The Canon had perfect scores in contrast and brilliance (30 out of 30;
Zeiss, 27 of 30) In a test which is supposed to indicate build quality, in
which the entire lens is rotated while a refernce light is beamed through,
and assymetries measured at the other end, the canon scored 19/20 to the
Zeiss' 18/20. The mag goes on to heap praise on this lens, saying the
equals the "dream score" of the best performing lens in that category they
tested - a 11,000DM 180/2.0 Leica. The Canon costs 1900DM, and is the
cheapest of the 4! The 2nd place Zeiss costs 3700DM.
I kinda give credit to the color photo tests, as do reps from nikon,
minolta, pentax, and mamiya - who've publicly stated their belief in the
objectivity of the color foto testing methods. (maybe they got ad
discounts?)
Anyway the tests seem extremely meticulous, with every rating factor
carefully explained and justified. It could be that leicas actually do
tend to test well, but most of us will have to trust the tests because
Leicas are so damned expensive nobody we know uses them!!
In practice, this seems a theoretical game. I dont care as I love my zuiks
for other reasons. They test well with me and thats enuff.
< 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 >
|