In article <60.14706.5522.0N200E71@canrem.com>, martin.tai@canrem.com says...
>-> In article <60.14470.5522.0N200785@canrem.com>, martin.tai@canrem.com
>-> says... (lotsa quoted numbers from mag. "test" reports deleted)
>-> >The fact is Nikon is not as good as Canon, way behind Leica
>->
>-> Gosh........ Um, that just doesn't fit my experience, somehow......
>-> Uh, hope this helps...........
>
> Your experience is limited by your method of evaluation, which is
>subjective in nature. Quite useless at best.
> No way you can compete with labs with professinal lens test
>scientists.
> Do you have computerisized MTF equipments ?
>
> Your equimpement is only a 10 x loup. Yuk, using that
>to provide your lens test ?
>
> For about 90 francs one can buy scientific lab tests
>who need subjective opinion. Every camera salesman can provide
>similar subjective list as yours.

Hmmmmmmm...., this is probably VERY foolish of me (answering this),
but I never could resist treading where I ought not to............

The "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)" (more than 100 lenses,
plus multiple samples of most - heck, one LOT of experience, don't you
think(?)...., plus samples unlisted of many bad Sigmas, Leitzes, Canons,
Tokinas, etc. [and good ones - which, if they fit Nikon bodies, were
listed]), is based on use, and on an informal test using familiar subjects
at four distances: infinity, a couple hundred feet, five feet, and minimum
focus distance for the lens involved. (Most "scientific" testing ignors
the fact that lenses perform differently at different distances - sometimes
VERY differently, which makes single-distance tests quite useless [and it
may account for some of the variations in the results of those "scientific"
tests - the testers used different testing distances.]). I also check for
optical alignment using one or more of the longest distance subjects.
B & W negatives are examined with a sharp (but simple) 10x magnifier (lower
magnification doesn't tell me much, higher magnification actually lowers
the consistency of reading because of the difficulties of use - 10x easily
gives me the information I am looking for).

Your premise that only "scientists" in a "lab" (which is probably one
person hanging test targets on a wall and shooting them - and I can write
reams about why that doesn't work) can properly test lenses is silly -
lenses are used to take pictures, and a lens test should relate to that
process to be anything other than a nearly useless set of numbers
representing who-knows-what? If I test a lens using charts, and the numbers
look O.K., - and then I take pictures with the lens, and the photographs
look bad because the lens is technically deficient in some way that doesn't
show up in lines-per-mm or MTF curves, which is the more valid
representation of actual lens performance?

I arrive at the lens evaluation numbers by comparing a lenses performance
as I see it with that of all the other lenses I have used, and placing that
relative performance level on a number scale earlier used by Grover Larkins
(I tried to keep my numbering system consistent with his so that the two
lists can be complimentary). In addition, I add general comments about
typical characteristics of Nikkor lens performance (by lens groups) so that
the reader can add some typical performance characteristics to the
otherwise bare evaluation number. Beyond that, notes are included to offer
information about exceptions to the general comments, or about things
peculiar to the particular lens. With all of this, anyone who has used a
few of the lenses covered should be able to get (in a pretty concise form)
a good idea about how another lens performs.

Now, as to price, you can get my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly
Nikkors)" for free (no need to spend 90 francs for all those other
funny numbers),
at: http://www.phys.rug.nl/mk/people/aue/photo.html
thanks to Jan-Jaap Aue. Follow "photography" to "NIKON".
or: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bmtong/photo.html
thanks to B0 Ming Tong. Follow "photography" to "Frequently asked
questions" to "Nikon FAQ 2.x" (at end)
or: rec.photo.misc
maybe somewhere in the last 250 entries.
Hope this helps.