[rollei_list] Re: OT: Leica vs. Zeiss
- From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:11:27 +0000
I am sceptical of any test which does not test a statistically valid number of
units. Experience and hearsay leads me to believe that there is very
considerable sample variation in reasonably priced lenses, particularly those
which have a very large number of elements such as zooms, especially those with
image stabiliser units also. The precision needed in axial and radial location
of the elements is extremely high and I do not think it is achieved in general
production. These lenses are cheaper due to less quality control, IMO. If the
lenses sent for review are hand selected the consumer will perhaps be tempted
by the writers enthusiasm. If the lens he/she buys does not perform as well as
the test item the vast majority of consumers will not notice, IMO.
This certainly was the way it went in the HiFi business during the short time I
was involved.
I suspect those lenses with the minimum number of elements commensurate with
the performance requirement, with high precision mounts correctly temperature
compensated if possible/necessary and with a high degree of post-manufacture
quality control are probably the good ones, and reassuringly expensive.
WRT the 50mm f3.5 CV lens, firstly I am not sure whether the lens is actually a
Heliar by construction or by marketing, and also in this era it can hardly be
difficult to produce a spectacular lens this slow.
cheers,
Frank
On 18 Nov, 2009, at 22:11, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:55 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Leica vs. Zeiss
>
>
> Curious where this information comes from?
>
> BTW if I'm remembering right the CV 50/3.5 Heliar tested in at least
> one of the testing mag/rags as the most highly corrected lens of all
> the 35 mm gear they ever looked at...
>
>
> Eric Goldstein
>
> --
> Me too, this is just not the way lenses are designed. While the glass can
> be a major cost item there are others, such as difficult to make surfaces
> that result in high reject rates and cemented surfaces that require a lot of
> hand work and extra steps. Also, some glass has excellent optical properties
> but is very difficult to work with so its used only when it can't be avoided.
> Some glass types are no longer made because of environmental
> considerations. An example is that arsenic, which had been used as a
> clarifier for generations, had to be eliminated. This is one reason that many
> lenses were re-designed in the recent past. Not to improve them but to make
> it possible to continue making them.
> In general, the Heliar type is not capable of being corrected as highly as
> some more complex generic designs. While some very good Heliar type lenses
> have been made (by Kodak for instance) designers have mostly found that other
> arrangements offer better opportunities.
> I also add that I am very skeptical of magazine testing.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
