In article <853528200.4797@dejanews.com>, johnchap@erols.com says...
[most deleted...]
>Where I am trying to go with all the above is that I wish some of those
>who pontificate (me included) about the merits of this lens or that
>actually test the lenses (I do) and quote actual resolution figures (I
>haven't) rather than our subjective opinions that are impacted by lens
>contrast, lens color, film characteristics, etc.. This would be helpful
>to all of us.

Would it? It seems that with proper testing that numerically valid
ratings based on those objective tests would be possible/desireable.
But (well, BUT!!!), I can think of so many reasons why chart testing
of lenses (which even if successful, would not account for important
real-world characteristics of lens performance, like color balance,
flare, distortion, contrast, de-focus characteristics, illumination
evenness, vignetting, etc.) doesn't tell you much, is misleading, or
is extremely difficult to do in a way that would produce meaningful
results (and those results may be so complex as to be equivalent to
being meaningless, since they would be difficult to understand).
More useful, I think, is to understand the characteristics of lens
performance as they relate to what YOU want a lens to do, and if
you want, relate how well one lens you are familiar with accomplishes
what you want to another lens you are familiar with. Anything else
gets you lost in the fantasy of the solidity of chart test numbers...
(where lens "A" tests with 60 lpm in the center, and is therefore
"better" than lens "B" that tests with 48 lpm in the center at
f4 and 3 feet - but "B" may have better corner resolution, higher
contrast, and all else being equal, will probably produce a nicer
image... [and, then, lens "B" may be particularly distance-sensitive,
resulting in maybe the equivalent of 100 lpm resolution center-to-corner
near infinity focus, while lens "A" is still around 60 lpm... {ETC.!!}]).
Hope This Helps