on 04.02.03 22:19, Raimo Korhonen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I�m not Mike but I have Practical Photography November 2000 issue in front of > me. In the test 90-105 mm macro lenses get the following points: > Canon AF 100/2.8 - 9/10 > Minolta AF 100/2.8 - 9/10 > Nikon AF 105/2.8D - 7/10 > Pentax AF 100/2.8 - 6/10 > Sigma AF 105/28 EX - 9/10 > Tamron AF 90/2.8 SP - 9/10 > Tokina AF 100/2.8 AT-X 6/10 > Pentax 100 mm performs well but needs stopping down and is expensive. > All the best!
That's another sample of unreliability of any tests. The same comparison in German Color Foto: Canon 100/2.8 - 84 pt. Leica 100/2.8 - 90 pt. Minolta 100/2.8 - 90 pt. Nikon 105/2.8 - 80 pt. Pentax 100/2.8 - 86 pt. Pentax 100/3.5 - 83 pt. Sigma 105/2.8 - 86 pt. Tamron 90/2.8 - 82 pt. Similar results were shown in Foto Magazin... All these tests lead me to some conclusions. First - they are not reliable source of getting information of REAL performance of lenses. Second - various test methods can lead to completeley different results. Third - lenses, which have very good reputation at many users, are good enough for most of us - the differences between various brand are not significiant and usually are very minor! -- Best Regards Sylwek
