RE: [Leica] SHARPNESS

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

	While I agree that an established and agreed-upon system for
evaluating lens qualities would be wonderful, I am not certain that it would
be more useful than the discussions found on the LUG.  I for one enjoy and
find useful the variety of subjective evaluations herein presented.  In
fact, these subjective evaluations can tell a great deal about a lens, even
when the comments disagree.  Indeed, there are other sites (photodo?) where
one can find those subjective, numerical, graphic evaluations, and that's
fine.  However, when Erwin posts and comments on his bench-test evaluations
and Ted Grant tells us how it was to work with a lens in the field, I tend
to learn a great deal more than I do reading charts and comparing numbers.

	I think it would be a fine exercise for those among us better able
than I to derive a definitive test, but I hope that the "traditional"
exchanges and arguments over lens qualities will continue as always.

		Buzz Hausner


> Rather than relying on relative quantification why not work together to
> establish a standard (or use one already established- NBS resolution test
> chart), and post the results?  In that way we wouldn't have to use
> adjectives
> like 'good', 'great', 'fantabulous', or whatever- it would be a
> mathematical
> reference- like 80 lines per millimeter at one enlargement to the second
> power
> (2X).
> Everybody gets better, gray area fades and contrast gets brighter.
> 
> 
>