In article <4alc0j$5cv@guava.epix.net>, pcollura@epix.net says...
(most deleted - commenting on B. Atkins "proof" based on Pop
Photo "tests" "proving" that Leitz lenses are inferior)
>Stereo Review (the audio analog of Pop Photography ) can never >distinguish junk from pearls by bench testing. Neither should
>you put so much faith in your quoted numbers taken out of contex.

Methinks you missed the point of B. Atkins post, which is EXACTLY
what you say above (responding to M. Tai's endless recitations of
empty numbers quoted from various sources - used to "prove" the
superiority of Leitz lenses over Sigma, Sigma over Canon, Canon
over Nikon [I think I got the order right - though I might argue
that M. T. got it backward!] ;-) . Though, I can't resist adding
that, in my experience, and for my purposes, most of the Leitz
lenses that I have tried (not very many - but when you try some,
and they are mostly not up to your standards, why continue?) have
been inferior to most Nikkors in wide aperture performance.
Hope this helps.