on 24.01.03 17:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > I wonder how these tests are useful for us from the magazine. Nearly all 24mm > lenses got less than 70 points out of 100. It seems that tele lenses get much > higher notes than wide ones. > Strange. SO maybe you are they are tested nearly full open. > What do you think? > And in this magazine Fa100/2.8 macro got very high mark - 86 > Well done Pentax > And in US magazine it was only 6/10.Also strange. Are there any huge optical > differences between the same lenses or just diff conditions of tests? > Alek > Reading tests more and more in more places, I found them to be just unreliable. For instance: - according to Folorfoto MZ-S has one of the slowest AF among current SLR bodies (just slightly faster than Dynax 404 and 505, and much slower than MZ-3 and N*** F65...), the same test in FotoMagazine, and MZ-S has one of the fastest AF (beting easily even F100, Dynax 7 and EOS3...) - in FotoMagazin test MZ-S has quite poor matrix metering, in ColorFoto it just got better - better than F100 or EOS-30 (which were far better in former magazine tests...) - standard zooms - according to ColorFoto FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 is far better than FA 28-70/4 and what's more than FA* 28-70/2.8!!! - long zooms - according to photodo, F 70-210/4-5.6 is undoubtly better (3.4) than FA* 80-200/2.8... ... and so on, and so on. I am just tired of this "mish-mash". The best way is to make tests yourself - if the lens or body proves to be better for you rather than for testmen than just get it and be happy!
-- Best Regards Sylwek
