Related Local Links:
Blind Lens Testing Issues Pages
Blind Lens Testing Results
How to Test Cameras and Lenses
Lens Testing Chart Download
Lens Testing Charts and Resolution pages
Lens Resolution Testing (USAF charts..)
Lens Testing Pages

Discussion

I included two handheld shots at 1/125th second with the Hasselblad 500c and Kowa 6. I didn't do handheld shots at 1/500th second, as such speeds are usually well beyond the point where camera shake is a factor. I expected the handheld shots to be lower resolution than the tripod mounted shots, and rated them near the bottom.

A few data points were either mis-reported or slides were missing and so are shown as blanks. I expected the Chinese Seagull DF-4 6x6cm SLR with its three element lens ($25) to score the lowest. The Chinese Seagull DF-4 SLR only goes up to 1/200th second speeds. So the Seagull DF-4 was not able to do the f/8 at 1/500th second speed shots (test #2). Putting it last also made it easier to compare the two similar series of tripod mounted tests.

To check on consistency, I included three shots by the same 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss planar lens, including two on the same 500c body. To check if a motorized camera vibration was a problem, I included a shot from the motorized Hasselblad 500 EL/M body with the same 80mm f/2.8 lens as the 500c shots. If people were consistently and reliably able to sort out each lens, then these shots should cluster together.

I also made an effort to explore lens variations by including three shots from the same Bronica EC camera body, but using three different lenses (serial numbers ending in #09, #65, #74). If lenses were really built the same and brands were all that mattered, then these three lenses should have been as identical as peas in a pod. Again, as the ratings show, they weren't identical in performance. Two of the Bronica nikkor 75mm f/2.8 lenses were among the top rated lenses, while the third lens (s/n #65) was rated significantly lower.

Statistics

We would usually consider a result to be statistically significant if its chances of happening by chance or randomly were less than 1 in 20 trials or greater than 95% of the area under the bell-shaped normal curve. A random result would correspond to 50% (as in flip a coin, 50% above, 50% below the center average point). Anything less than 50% would imply a negative correlation, here meaning cheaper lenses were rated higher.

How did our blind lens test work out? Our average Z statistic for these four subjects corresponded to less than 64%. This value is very much below our 95% threshold for being statistically significant. This result is much closer to purely random chance (i.e., 50%, flip a coin). None of the test subjects beat 75%, and one (#4) was slightly negatively correlated (45% point). The average Z-scores for both tests were very similar (test #1 Zavg=.33 versus test #2 Zavg=.4). So the average significance level of each test was also similar (test #1=63.3% , test #2=65.5%). In other words, ratings at f/8 and at f/16 had about the same level of statistical significance (~64%) for each f/stop test. Both tests (at 64%) were well short of our level of statistical significance (95%). What this means is that the lens ratings do not correlate to dollar costs at a statistically significant level.

In short, lens price does not correlate with lens performance or ratings.

What if we remove the two low end cameras with three element lenses (a used $40 Yashicamat TLR and the $75 used Chinese Seagull DF-4 6x6cm SLR)? Our tests level of statistical significance drops even closer to 50% and our ratings are even more random and uncorrelated. In other words, any decent four element or better medium format lens seems to produce professional level results at f/8 and f/16, regardless of camera or lens price.

Comparison of F/stops

How should we interpret this highly scattered data of lens ratings at f/16? I suggest that the differences are too small to reliably sort out the slides at f/16. Diffraction rather than lens quality is our limiting factor. If you are shooting with a decent lens around f/16, chances are good your results are not limited by the cost of that lens. Stated another way, "upgrading" from a $50 Bronica 75mm nikkor to a $1,000+ zeiss planar 80mm on a Hasselblad is unlikely to result in any reliably observable improvements at f/16.

Most medium format lenses have "sweet spots" around f/8 where their resolution is at a maximum. Lens aberrations limit the wide open resolutions around f/4, while diffraction limits resolution when fully stopped down. So the choice of f/8 for the second lens test series was aimed at securing comparisons of the lens "sweet spots" of maximum resolution. We would expect the best and most expensive lenses to deliver higher resolution and image quality at this lens "sweet spot" around f/8 on most medium format lenses.

Remember that both the f/8 and f/16 test ratings for each test subject were about equally poorly correlated with our expected price based ratings (test #1=63.3% , test #2=65.5%). So while each test subject is poorly correlated (64%) with the expected price based ratings overall, the subjects are in closer agreement on high or low ratings of lenses in the tests at f/8. Unfortunately, while the data for f/8 tests is more clustered and consistent, it works against the idea that higher cost lenses deliver better performances. The three top average ratings went to $50-75 used Bronica nikkors and a $75 Kowa 85mm lens. The Rolleiflex Zeiss planar lens slightly edged out the Hasselblad zeiss lens average ratings. The Hasselblad Zeiss lens had the most recent CLA, and cost the most new or used of any lens tested.

On the other hand, Bronica S2/EC owners can't afford to be too smug about placing in 2 of the top 3 spots (along with Kowa). While two bronica nikkors took first and third place in average ratings in the second test, one of the three Bronica nikkors (#65) was rated next to last.

My point is that lens variations between different samples of the same lens is evidently a major factor. If you have a good example, it may well outperform even Zeiss optics on a Hasselblad at their "sweet spot" as these two Bronica examples did. If you have a bad example of the lens, such as my #65 nikkor, then it may rank among the lowest lenses tested as in our test.

Criticisms

I ranked the test subjects from most experienced (#1) to least experienced (#4). But I don't yet have enough data from a wide enough range of photographer experience levels to say much about how experience correlates with greater consistency in ratings (at f/8).

Another critic suggests that the "real" test of a lens is how it performs in high flare situations. Unfortunately, such flare response is devilishly hard to repeatedly and reliably test in a real world photo (versus on a lab bench). Small movements in real world photos can produce large differences in the amount of flare experienced in the viewfinder and on film.

How about bokeh or out of focus highlights? We lack a vocabulary or measurement for bokeh discussions. But such subjective factors may well be factored in by the buyer at higher weights and importance, given our blind lens test results. If differences in lens resolution and quality are hard to reliably see in real world photos, then why not give higher priority to readily observable differences in how highlights are imaged and handled by your lenses?

A nice benefit of such an approach is that many of the better and pleasing bokeh lenses are often older lenses (with degrees of under or over-corrected spherical and other aberrations). Such lenses are often quite low cost compared with their more recent and more likely to be computer optimized for resolution brethren. I included out of focus highlights (from the fountain spray) in my blind lens tests precisely because I wanted to see how each lens handled such situations. You may wish to add a similar bokeh test to your own lens testing practices.

Conclusions

Nor am I trying to say these results will hold for all similar lenses when tested. My three Bronica nikkor lenses show lenses vary a lot. The only way you can be sure how your lenses are performing is to test them.

Many of us invest a lot of our self-identity as well as our money in our choice of cameras and lenses. Only by doing a blind lens test can we be sure of getting an unbiased lens rating, uncolored by expectations of price and performance. Like the Pepsi Challenge taste test, you may be surprised to learn you really prefer a different brand than you thought!

I believe these blind lens test results are exciting and generate useful insights. If you are shooting a lot at f/16 (e.g., DOF for landscapes), then you aren't likely to see much difference in resolution between different lenses regardless of cost (due to diffraction limits). At the maximum lens resolution "sweet spot" around f/8, high price is not a guarantee of high performance or high ratings. Some of the top rated lenses in our study were from older budget medium format cameras rather than the more costly optics tested.

So in the end, I am forced to conclude that even our budget medium format cameras and lenses aren't holding us back from making great pictures. We will get better results from more practice, rather than from more money spent on more expensive camera gear.

Notes:

What about the difference between the popularly priced lens and the very expensive one? First of all, there is not a very great difference between the optical performance. Most lenses are very nearly the same optical designs, such as the familiar Biotar types. In the expensive lens, an extra effort is made to keep the focal length of the manufactured lens very close to the design value. In the less expensive types, the focal length may vary a bit more. There can also be a small variation in the correction qualities for close ups, and the less expensive lens might show a bit more variation of sharpness at various apertures. You'll probably never notice it in everyday shooting, but careful testing including resolution charts, can show up these slight differences. Because of close tolerances in manufacturing and testing, the more expensive optics show a greater uniformity of performance, lens to lens. [italics in original] In any case, careful testing can tell you what to expect from your lens, and quickly identify a clunker.

Related Postings

From: Zeljko Kardum [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Questions about medium-format vs. 35mm
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
> MF photographers too are different. Most use more than one brand, and don't
> suffer from the same partisan attitude so overwhelmingly displayed in
> rec.photo.equipment.35mm.

True.

After fiddling with various MF cameras for a past couple of years, I
find out that with MF equipment it' much more important what film you
use than which lens/camera brand ;-)

Kardum
http://www.kardum.com/


From: [email protected] (Bob Hickey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: cost of lpmm URL etc. Re: Lens testing realities
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002

     Very subjective, but I've used a Rollei TLR with a Planar, and a
Hassy with a 80mm Planar, for a long time, and absolutely cannot tell
the difference. The price difference is $1700 used. The difference
between HP-5 in Rodinal, and FP-4 in FG-7 is very plain to see.

Bob Hickey


From: [email protected] (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 05 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: Mega Leaps

...
>most liberating event has been my blind lens test series, discovering that
>with good technique modern medium format lenses were so good on most pro
>level cameras that even I couldn't tell which lens took which photo ;-)
>(see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/blind.html etc.).


I could tell the difference between Bronic and Carl Zeiss medium format lenses
(a friend showed me his double blind test back in my photo school days) but I
may be one of those exceptions that proves the rule (also, having spent years
w/ various 35mm systems I know what to look for in a lens's "signature"). But
if you can't tell the difference then that certainly saves you a lot of money!
:-). But in all fairness, past a certain point your talking about degrees of
excellence rather than excellent vs. very good vs. good vs. fair vs. poor image
quality. Format/larger square inches is a great leveler of picture quality and
at smaller sizes you'd have to have a pretty poor medium format lens to notice
anything being awry or even care. At least to the average/casual person, when
you are comparing the flaws of two quality diamonds (medium format lens vs/
medium format lens) you're still looking at diamonds (not blackened opaque
lumps of coal) no matter what brands of lenses you're looking at.
....

Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm


From: "Mark Morgan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bad lenses, Bad, Bad, lens....
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002

"ajacobs2" [email protected] wrote...
> Rambling on about Lenses:
> About once a week someone writes about a lens and lately the conversation
> seems to be "did I get  a bad sample of that lens".  In most cases I think
> their fears are wasted energy.

The funny thing is...  Is most of us were actually taking consisent shots
where the only flaw in them were those attributable to bad lenses...We would
be literally the KINGS of the photographer world!!

If only we had merely our lenses to blame for all the bad shots we are all
guilty of shooting.
:)

Dream on, and keep those "flawed lenses" (wink wink) around so we don't have
to feel bad for our own screw-ups.


From: "Joseph Meehan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of photos with different cameras.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 


Begin Quote
 After reading this news group the one question I can't get an answer to
is if we all lined up to take the same picture with Nicons, Canons,
Pentaxs and Minoltas what would be the difference in the final product?
End Quote

    Little or none.  The camera and film may be 10%; the photographer
and if prints the lab tech are the 90%
--




From: C J Donoghue [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of photos with different cameras.
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 

.. (above post quoted)

If we all lined up to take the *same picture* then there would be no ompositional
variation; no lighting variation; no perspective variation( assuming the same
viewpoint); so the differences would only be due to lens characteristics, exposure
differences, film choice, focussing accuracy, depth of field, and camera shake.
Focussing accuracy includes both manual and auto, and film flatness (a function of
the camera body).

Conclusion: If the question was intended to test cameras to find the best, it would
fail since the stated criteria are far too loose.

Colin.


From: "Mike Lipphardt" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta/Nikkor will I notice the difference?
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002


Minolta has had pro-grade lenses out since day one which favorably compare
to anyones.  However, to specifically answer the question;  My instructor
and I both shot the very same scene at the very same time.  I was using a
Maxxum 9000 with a Maxxum 50mm f1.7.  He was using a Nikon F3 with a 50mm
f1.4.  We were both shooting on Kodak T-Max 100, f8 at 1/250th (yeah, this
is all written in my lab notes).

I developed and printed both shots full frame - he's the instructor, which
means I do the work -  using a grain magnifier (not much grain with TMax
100, let me tell you) and we looked at them closely.  There was no
discernable difference between them.

Forget it.  There's no point in obsessing about who makes the best lenses.
Everyone makes better lenses than either you or I could make full use of.

Mike


From: "Leen Koper" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta/Nikkor will I notice the difference?
Date: Sun, 5 May 2002


"Crecybattl" [email protected] schreef 
> I've been using a Canon AE-1 and would like to add a modern system. Advanced
> amateur (motion picture degree so I have knowledge but stills are only a
> hobby).  I shoot maybe 20-30 rolls a years.  Mostly strong contrast subjects,
> lots of architecturals and landscapes.  Largest I'm likely to blow up a photo
> would be to 20 x 24.
>
> Granted, Nikon has been in the pro business for years and may have some
> superior lenses where Minolta has been concentrating on the consumer range and
> may not have the big boys.  However, in the lower ranges of $400-$600 for a
> 24-105 or 100-300, am I likely to be disappointed or even notice the difference
> between the Nikkors and the Minolta lenses?


No, you won't.

Nobody will ever be able to tell by the finished print the difference
between Minolta, Canon or Nikon optics. I'm a professional photographer for
28 years and I've worked with Pentax Nikon, Canon and Minolta and I've never
noticed any difference. Some Canon, some Nikon, some Minolta  lenses are
slightly better than the others, but there is no brand better overall than
another.

Recently I bought the Minolta 24-105 lens and it is really a wonderful piece
of optics.

Leen Koper ABIPP ARPS
www.fotografieleenkoper.nl



from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Ludwig Meritar Lenses on Exas and Other Stuff

friedaandbrandy at [email protected] wrote:

> I was reading recently an article by Ivan Matanle in the
> British AP on lens acuity and he made a good point - that stopped
> down sufficiently, the sharpness of lens A compared to lens B is not
> as great as you might expect.   He recently featured an Exakta VX11a
> with an "entry level lens" - in this case a Meyer Domiplan f2.8 - and
> commented on its sharpness, etc, being much better than its
> reputation suggested.  Then again, maybe he never had reason to take
> any pix actually at f2.8!!!   That seems to be the area where these
> basic lenses show their deficiencies.

I think his name is Ivor.  Yeah, he makes a good point. I doubt my dad
ever used his Meritar wide open, particularly with the Exa's limited
shutter speed range.

Bob


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Mamiya v Hassy

[email protected] wrote:

> I am a long time Hassy user. I am not sure that this issue hasn't been dealt
> with previously. I have been hearing from some friends lately, about the
> "quality" of Mamiya 7 lenses. I have friends who claim that if I wasn't such
> a Hasselblad "snob" I would readily admit to the superiority of the Mamiya 7
> lenses over the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses. I admit that I am far from an expert
> on the matter so I shun these discussions. What are the opinions of the more
> educated users about this matter? Thanks

Your friend is showing himself to be a bit of a Mamiya snob. ;-)
Truth is, there is very little difference in quality between lenses of the
major MF manufacturers. They are all more than good enough. So don't worry
about it. Just go with the system that, as a whole (!), suits your needs
best. And then you may end up using a Hasselblad for some tasks, and a
Mamiya 7 for other tasks. No need to be exclusive.



From: "Leen Koper" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 645 lenses
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002

"David J. Littleboy" [email protected] schreef
> I understand that the Mamiya 7 lenses are great and that the C330 lenses are
> no slouches, but how are the Mamiya 645 lenses?
>
> Pointers to relevant articles appreciated.
>
> (The 645ProTTL is looking quite attractive: with the left hand grip it's the
> ultimate left-eye-dominant photographer's camera, and used lenses are widely
> and cheaply available over here.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I 've been using Mamiya 645 lenses for over 27 years and, at the time I was
employed, my employer often compared his H'blad images with my Mamiya ones.
There is a slight difference in contrast, but absolutely not in sharpness.
Since 10 years I am an high street photographer with my own studio and I use
Bronica SQ in the studio and my Mamiya 645 equipment on location and I 'm
still very enthousiastic about the superb quality opf the optics.

Leen Koper ABIPP ARPS
www.fotografieleenkoper.nl


From: [email protected] (Mr 645)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: Mamiya 645 Lenses vs Hasselblad


when I tested Hassy lenses to Mamiya 645 lenses I found that when wide open,
the Hassy lenses were slightly sharper, especially in the corners, but when
stopped down one stop or more, the results were the same.  Hassy lenses seem to
be built better and cost more.

2� from Jon
http://www.jonlayephotography.com


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 
From: "Felix Lopez de Maturana" [email protected]
Subject: RE:On Picture Sharpness

>I learned from the mistake of dumping my Pentax and its lenses that the
>weakest link in the chain is probably NOT the camera.
[Ed. note: the weak link was a cheapy enlarger lens making the photos look bad...]

Jeffery


What a sensible and clever comment! Different lists are always vanting their
gear superiority and in my experience, fifty, yes fifty, years shooting very
bad pictures rarely the value of a picture was due to the quality of the
gear. Mostly some minor success was due to the quality of the light, or to
the righ  the moment, and very often the value of the picture was due to the
beauty of the object I was photographying, person or landscape, and ,very
few times, to a brilliant view from my part of the subject. I'm a
multisystem man, more than thirty cameras, yes including the very famous
Leica, Hasselblad, Contax and Linhof and I am rather skeptical about the
necessity of a determinated gear for getting the best picture. Sometimes you
need the appropiate tool, a perspective lens for architectural pictures for
instance, but more often you need more inspiration than the most famous
german gear. So I cannot understand people who find themselves plain of
pride for owning the "best" camera and the "best "lens. As it happens in
High Fidelity sound, where, by the way, you can find another group of
hardware fanatics, the weakest link of your photographic chain determinates
the final result, but the best result is got with human skill more than the
best equipment. I hope that my ideas are clearly explained however my very
best equipment. I hope that my ideas are clearly explained however my very
poor english.

Kind regards

Felix


From: Roger [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002


Xosni wrote:
> I'm fed up with those Hoya filters. I want to try quality filters now-
> I'm talking specifically about #29 (dark red) filter for B&W. Where
> can I get Schneider or Rodenstock filters in the US (VA)? And which
> offer the best quality?

Hmmm...tests I've seen suggest that filters make next to no difference
to optical quality.  It's very easy to make a flat piece of glass.

Obviously avoid anything that's loose in its mount or isn't coated on
both sides.
--
Roger



Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: c'mon - back to the H1

 you wrote:
>However, I really really really would prefer to stay with my 'blad glass.

Why? The fellow I shoot wedding for uses Hassy all the time & I use the
Bronica ETRS. He's VERY finicky and has a generally higher-end clientele,
but neither he nor they see any significant objective difference from his
proofs or negs or enlargements compared with mine. You do far more damage
to an image with half a stop of underexposure than by selecting a Bronica
or Fuji lens over a Hassy IMHO.

I understand full-well them emotional issue. I own an 25+ year old Nikon
105/2.5 manual focus I couldn't give up if it meant losing a hand, and I
certainly understand the financial, but if we limit the conversation to
image quality, the proof's on the paper (pun intended).

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com



Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 
From: Steve Gullick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Where's the "V"?

...
It may surprise you to know that many an art director will not know the
difference between a Hassy, a Bronica, Rolli or anything else. I always
shoot weddings with a Mamiya TLR simply for the fact that it is very quiet
to use in a church ( and, quite frankly, I could not tell you that the image
quality is anything less that my hassy), I shoot pack shots on a very ols
Sinar that looks like it was built to take pictures of the ark, although I
do use quality lenses. Moat of my 35mm work is done with Olympus OM1s &2s.


From: [email protected] (Bryan Olson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are you contemplating going digital?
Date: 12 Dec 2002


"mp" wrote:

I (Bryan) had written:
> > This is not entirely off-topic.  For example, many times we've
> > seen claims that a lens is/isn't very sharp, and the test method
> > either wasn't stated or was simply examination of a transparency.
>
> By the same token, it'd be pretty hard to judge a lens based on a couple of
> test shots, especially if the testing is based solely on resolution patterns
> and colour charts. Sure enough, one lens might be a bit sharper or differ in
> contrast, but you'd have to shoot a decent amount of film first before you'd
> have a good overall feel for how the lens performs in different lighting
> conditions and different subject matter. A lot of people may really like a
> lens not so much for it's test numbers, but rather the look of the images it
> produces.

A lot of people like lenses for the names on them.

The sharpness issue was just an example.  If the "over-all feel"
method makes you happy, don't let me talk you out of it.  I'm just
pointing out that the judgements have to be made blind or one isn't
really judging the lens on its performance.
--Bryan


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 
From: mankoo kak [email protected]
Subject: Lens Comparison

Has anybody compared kiev (Arsenal)/east german (CZJ) lenses
against other more well known lens brands (Bronica or
hasselblad) side by side?

If yes .. how bad really are kiev/CZJ lenses?

Recently I met a guy who said he used kiev and
hasselblad side by side for wedding photography and
was pretty happy with his vega (120mm) and CZJ
Sonnar(180mm) .. He said that CZJ is good even wide open!
He used color/bw  negative film and not slides.

-Mandar


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 
From: "Olivier Auverlau" [email protected]
Subject: Lens Comparison

Hi Mandar

I use Both Hassy , Rollei and schneider lenses for medium and 4x5
....rodenstock for 8x10 ...
my work is used in advertising in 4x8 meters Big posters in the street (who
say bigger enlarging? )

so i use lenses depending my necessity .... i can say than i am very happy
with 30mm ARSAT , 120 arsat , not so much with 80mm and 150 f2,8 ... which
lenses i have in my rollei 6006 and they give me much betters results (i
work with 300 at 500 MB files from drum scanned slides and can see a
notificable difference ....between both lenses category ....for general
detailsfull general images (landscape with threes .... ) BUt in general
arsat and old CZJ are good ..... i am very happy with the 50mm old zebra i
have used for this kind of enlarging ....

for macro , i prefer my rollei or hassy CZ and schneider .... but nice and
cheap using the 180mmCZJ with two sets of macro rings in P6 mount for nice
close ups ...

so all depend taste and money !!! .....but they are great for the prize .

Olivier .


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 
From: Stephen Castello [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens Comparison

...

Check in http://forums.delphiforums.com/kievreport/messages   As I recall,
there have been a few tests by the members of the forum.

Stephen


From: [email protected] (Alan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old Nikon vs Old Pentax
Date: 30 Jun 2003 

Years ago, probably in the 80's, Popular Photography took identical
pictures with cameras on tripods and similar lenses with different
makes of cameras and the manufacturer's lens. As I recall, they used
Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta cameras. When the
resulting slides were shown in a side by side comparison, nobody could
tell which slides came from which camera.

End of Page