Arnold wrote: AS> comparable. In their test reports they clearly state that the results AS> for lenses of different speeds cannot be compared directly.
Really Arnold, then what good are these results for!? After all, people are more likely to decide between different lenses of the same brand, rather then between similar offering of P and C! Moreover, knowing very well how a lens performs they want to see where another one stands relative to their own reference. I'm afraid CF results suffer from the same syndrome Photodo once did. These global numeric results quantify too many factors to be meaningful. I'd rather stick to the MTF charts - there I can see the contrast and resolution on center and edges at various apertures, I can even get an idea of the boke (!). Indeed the MTF allows me to make a direct comparison between 28-70/4 and 200/2.8. Once I decide over the optical output I can then take into account speed, focal length, size, price, etc. I do understand that MTFs are harder to digest by most readers, but then these can be translated in simpler terms without necessarily resorting to overall figures that lend themselves easily to meaningless comparisons. Servus, Alin AS> Also one AS> must take into account, that for a super wide angle zoom like the AS> FA20-35/f4 a good performance is harder to achievbe than for a zoom like AS> the FA28-70/f4, so 70 points for the 20-35 is much more of an AS> achievement than 69 points for the 28-70/f4. Also, a zoom with larger AS> zooming range usually does not perform as well as a zoom with smaller AS> zooming range.
