I don't think everyone was pleased The staff on AP and
Dr. Stewart Bell weren't.... their reasoning was that MTF Tests
bear absolutely no relationship to what appears on film.
LPMM tests do.

The latest MTF Tests are done on digital sensors and can't
even be compared from sensor to sensor never mind trying to
compare them with any results on film Some Standard
It's like going back to pre Weights and Measures days.

-

Another lens that costs a lot of money is the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T*
SLR Gear didn't think too much of it on their test.
See the Conclusion at the bottom of the test.

"The problem in recommending this lens is that there wasn't anything wrong with existing solutions for Pentax and Nikon.........."

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1144/cat/98

-

Strange I remember seeing tests in AP of post war Nikon
rangefinder lenses v Leica lenses and the LPMM results
were better on the Nikon lenses. It's well accepted that
the contrast was higher on the Japanese lenses in general.

It bothers me that the 18-55mm shots of the warehouse are bad all
over Is it the camera or the lens? The same lens (presumably)
was OK on the other shots.... Just off centre crop below....




-

It winds the lens in from infinity... So set it beyond
your subject before you press focus and it shouldn't have
too far to move. If it misses it winds down to minimum
focus and then back out again.

Them were the days..... 15 hour days in't mill 7 days
a week for a Shilling.... put'n up with all that noise!

The 18-55mm at 55mm shots of the warehouse with the green wheel
look very poor, but the same lens looks OK on other shots
of Worsley etc. ?

-

When you look at the photos taken between a normal lens
and an expensive one there's very little difference and
both are equally usable.

This reviewer seems to have been influenced by the price
tag on the Voigtländer Nokton 58mm f1.4.

At 58mm and with 9 aperture blades you would expect better
bokeh than a 50mm with 8 blades.... hardly justifies the price.
The Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 would have been sharper.

To me there's nothing between these lenses going off
pictures alone.... and neither of them are as good
as an f/1.2 of which I have three!

http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/foto-ag/oldpage/Nokton/test-1.html

-

Try removing the price tag and see if it's still as good

I'm sure all lenses with £1,000 price tags seem as good

When Amateur Photographer tested this lens it didn't look
all that impressive They had previously been very
impressed with the 43mm which they called the Best Standard
Lens ever made

It seems that although it isn't mandatory they are following
a recommendation in the DCF Specification and duplicates
are allowed. I would have preferred that they didn't

"4.2.2 File number

The rules for recording file numbers are as follows.

If there is no DCF file name among the files in the DCF
directory where a file is to be stored, any initial file
number may be used.

· If a DCF file name already exists in the DCF directory
where a file is to be stored, it is recommended that the
file number be assigned as the largest existing number + 1.

· Within the same DCF directory, the file numbers of DCF
basic files shall not be duplicated. DCF basic files in
different DCF directories may have the same file
number."

========================================
So it's not a bug as such unless it
uses a file that it in a different directory
to base the numbers on.... in which case it
is a bug


Not if you've a few thousand files all with the same
numbers it isn't

-