The reason for slow "kit" lenses scoring better in Color Foto than their faster and more expensive counterparts is quite simple: they test lenses wide open and two stops down. So a slow zoom is tested at let's say f5.6 and f11, while a fast expensive 2.8 lens is tested at f2.8 and 5.6. They simply compare uncomparable.
If we add the common reasons that all lenses have sample variations, that in tests only some qualities are tested, that every person has its own merits on the quality of the lens, etc, it is really a no- brainer: they are close to useless. But we already know that, don't we? The only exeption to this rule, to my knowledge, is the following: "If my favorite lens is tested to be great, that particular test is the only correct one." <vbg> Matjaz > > Sylwek wrote: > > Or I am missing something very basic here... > Taht's just another proof how stupid some tests could be... I just > remember, that in CF tests, older "kit" lens - FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 was > better than not only FA 28-70/4 AL, but even it proved to be better > than FA* 28-70/2.8... I haven't seen more stupid results than in this > magazine. If you want to see antoher test of these two particulat > lenses (28-105 and 28-90) go to www.popphoto.com - they just make > prints and then visual inspection - results are at tables at different > enlargements and apertures (hint: 28-105 is better). > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek > > >
