i suppose, it's digital sensor that equalizes all the lenses. they all give the resolution (lpmm) numbers, computed from your description and the pictures, around 52 lpmm, except 55mm tak that goes a bit higher. the only real difference is in contrast.
btw, on the USAF chart, at the same 4..5' distance, my $150 rolleicord scores 69 lpmm. on provia100, which is not exactly the highest-res film. very interesting results. thanks! best, mishka On Apr 3, 2005 5:44 PM, Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since lots of people are testing lenses at present I thought I'd join > in - hope you don't mind. Besides its a really crappy day here with > lots of snow and high winds, so what else is there to do. > > I pinned up a print out of the USAF target to my wall (approx four feet > from the camera), mounted my *istDS on a sturdy tripod, mounted a variety of > lenses all set to F8 on the camera, fired the camera in RAW mode with 2 > second delay (i.e. mirror up). Opened the images in PSCS, cropped out the > center section of the target, converted to JPG and loaded them to this > page. > > http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/LensTest/index.html > > The lenses I chose for this highly scientific and precise testing were > > 1) DA18-55mm F3.5-5.6 (@50mm) > 2) F70-210mm F4.5-5.6 (@70mm from 6 feet) > 3) FA28-90mm F3.6-5.6 (@50mm) > 4) M 50mm F1.7 > 5) S-M-C Takumar 35mm F3.5 (with K adapter mounted on Sakar 1.7x > converter) > 6) SMC Takumar 55mm F2 (with K adapter) > > For what its worth to my aging eyes the ranking is > > 6,4,1,5,3,2 > > Nothing too surprising in that the prime lenses seem to be better, even > the one on the Sakar teleconverter. > > If the weather improves tomorrow I may try repeating the tests but use > a more distant target. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fred Widall, > URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
