Hey! You're probably right... It takes a lot of different tests to properly evaluate a lens. I'm always facing that perplexity myself! What is a good lens test, if you don't use the resolution charts, etc?
It most likely takes a lot of various changes in 'scenery' to properly wring out a lens. Okay... you guys have convinced me! <g> keith whaley Dan Scott wrote: > > On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 06:50 PM, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > Why? > > Once you have a decent print/photo from a lens, lte's say an excellet > > example of good resolutino, contrast, etc., why muddy the waters by > > saying you want more photogs to express THEMselves thru that lens? > > What is to be gained? > > You've already SEEN what the lens will do! > > What are you looking for? > > > > keith whaley > > > > keith, > > Well, lots of reasons. Suppose what you shoot seldom involves evenly > illuminated brick walls? Suppose what you want to see is examples of > coma, specular highlights, sensitivity to subtle tonal variations, > ability to deal with subjects near and far and everything in between? > What if your interest is primarily in B & W? Or your concern is flare > at different f/stops and angles. What if your interest is in > astrophotography, or portraits, or the reproduction of 2d or 3d objects > up close? > > These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure more examples could > come up. > > Dan Scott
