takesome1 said:If you want to use this number to compare the quality of a lens you need to have all things equal. Here are a few factors I know of that you didn't mention. Matt paper vs glossy for a target. Printing with a printer capable of printing photo's vs a normal laser jet. Target position and placement being square to the set up. Positioning of lighting, is the lighting direct or indirect at target. Type of lighting, I have several halogens that cast shadows.
^^This.
That's why, IMO, Reikan initially and correctly took the position they stated: "The absolute QoF value is unimportant, so you cannot compare the numbers from one test to another." It was only when they could make money from comparing absolute QoF numbers that their position changed. They're certainly not alone in changing their tune when money is at stake.
Nikon, until 2013: "Fluorite cracks easily and messes up focusing, so we developed ED glass because it's much better."
Nikon, post-2013: "Flourite is great becuase it optimally corrects CA and makes a lens lighter."
Upvote
0