>Second, you are testing for 2? aspects of lens performance: sharpness and
>evenness of illumination. There is no testing of coma, flare, behavior with
>point light sources, linear distortion, astigmatism .... so it seems to me
>that it's possible the Leica is slightly better in all those areas than the
>Nikon, thus leading to its higher price. I don't want to argue this; it's a
>hypothetical possibilty, and I'm not saying it's the case. So while your
>tests seem pretty valid for what you are checking, they don't seem to
>encompass all the factors.

I thought we had covered that. Normally I am interested in sharpness characteristics across the frame at the apertures I am interested in using.
In addition, I am interested in avoiding defects, so I look for uniformity.
In the process, one can check distortion and flare in an F finder without
using film (and in SLE(MN) you will find those described [you may need to look carefully...]). Point light source behavior and astigmatism (and color aberations) generally show up in the sharpness checks, if significant (plus I
am used to checking those great Nikkors, so it is hardly worth looking for some
things..... ;-) (Actually, there is some truth to it, since the designs are pretty predictable in performance in a lot of ways ['cept them dang'd 35-->X zooms!].)

>Just my thoughts on the subject.
>Nick

Always welcome! (You will probably get a credit for your comments and questions in the article, IF I ever finish it - the comments and questions help 'splain
this in the article