Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>>>>>>>>> In the end, I really don't put much credence in magazine lens tests, because they aren't lens manufacturers, they don't know the intent of the manufacturer (with Erwin P. being a notable exception in this area) and so how can they possibly test a lens for the target points of any given lens? So maybe I shouldn't get my shorts in a knot about them, eh? <<<<<<<<<< Definitely not worth knotting shorts over. And I wouldn't necessarily stand behind a magazine's tests. I have a pretty good feel for what Pop Photo's are worth, and I know little more about CDI's than what I read on this list (though the CDI tests appear to be fairly well respected). But I disagree with questioning the magazine tests' value specifically because they don't know the manufacturer's intention. Sure, intention matters to an extent (is the lens meant for high-end professional use or as a cheap zoom, for instance). But the magazine evaluates the lens from the viewpoint of the end user, of me, not the manufacturer. It's my "target points" that matter to me. And if the magazine is testing at points I also consider important, and I find their tests credible, those tests hold some value to me. I work for an ad agency. If a campaign we develop fails to generate a sufficient response and the art director says, "The public didn't get it," the campaign is still a failure. The art director's intentions are irrelevant. Likewise, if a lens priced at the top of its class truely does deliver a performance comparable to lenses costing a quarter the price, the lens designer's intentions are irrelevant. As a potential consumer of the lens, still assuming I find the magazine's testing credible, that is valuable information to me. Larry