we can have a few dozen people do the ranking and run Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient on all of the combinations and then correlate them with MTF curves, coma, chromatic aberration and a host of other measurements, but that's not the point. the point is that each one of us has an internal notion of which of our lenses are better and which ones are worse, and the line slides to move more lenses to the worse side when your judgment is initially formed on the their film performance.
what this boils down to is that if you have a choice of lenses to do a particular job, you will carry the best one for the situation. if you know what one that is, you have already made the value judgment that i'm telling you about. if your judgment is completely random, that's not my problem.
Herb....
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:33 PM
Subject: RE: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
Re: scientific... My original words were meant to mean that 'taking a 1000 frames with a number of lenses' on a film body and then comparing them to ' a 1000 frames taken with the same lenses on a digital body' is not a conclusive test. Hardly anything could be determined unless they were taken of the very same subjects, from the very same vantage point, under very controlled conditions. And then studied very carefully. And then that doesn't mean that a given lens still doesn't perform admirably in it's sweet spot. Obviously a lens that performs admirably over a large range of apertures and lighting conditions may be more desirable than one of more 'limited' usability.
