I remember some years ago having the same type of conversation with a stereo buff. He was expelling in great detail how great are and meaning db etc. In the process of the conversation I noted the wondrous aspects of stere sound possessed much which out side the ability of the human ear to hear. He kept on going. When I look at a lens I do black and white image of lade with long hair and examine it for contrast, definition and a few etherial things important to me like mood etc. then I project it onto while paper followed by projection onto a wall all the time looking at break up etc. I have not one time used a resolution chart to photograph. I have used a low powered microscope to look at a neg. Can the eye when looking at the image on the wall tell if the lens was very good or excellent? Or are the technical aspects lost to what the eye can't see? Just curious. From: Jeff Kelley <jlkphoto@xxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:40:56 -0700 To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Sweet spot: f8/f11? > > > However the character of the 80/2.8 Planar and the 135/4 Sonnar for > the Tele are wonderful and while they may not be the best technically > they are still great optics... > > > Eric Goldstein Eric, I agree...I have always wondered why the typical published lens test is all about the technical aspects, optics, charts and diagrams instead of what all but the most anal photographers actually do with a lens - make photographs and print images. Comparing lens diagrams and MTF charts have their valid uses but I always value someone's informed opinion more when his evaluation of a lens includes something similar to what I might do with the lens - like making some 8x10 prints from images taken with the lens. My memory ain't what it used to be but I can't recall ever rushing home with a new lens so I can get some shots of a resolution chart to examine with 20x loupe. Jeff