Isn't it strange that there is virtually no objective comparison on any type of lenses?
I went to my optician the other day for a new pair of glasses and i was asking about difference of lenses. Mainly because i had alot of trouble with chromatic aberration. The answer was that there was virtually no difference between brands and and types. They couldn't give me an answer on how to decrease the chromatic aberration, but they did say that choosing a thicker glass would reduce the deforment of the picture (that's a wrong translation, but i don't know the right word in english at the moment). Well i wasn't really satisfied with the answer, so i went to a other optician to ask his opinion about types of glasses, it was basicly the same answer.
Since i'm a photographer i have a fairly good understanding about lenses and how they work and the design that goes into them. Now with photography there is a very real difference in quality between lenses. This can be contributed to lense design, but most of the time the lenses that are being used and how they are cut also makes a difference in the end result.
For photography there is a vast amount of objective reviewing and testing avaiable, however for something that one uses daily and which is a major part of someones life, lenses are really not looked closely at.
For me i just can't believe that for example nikon would introduce a lense with the same thickness as a lense they already are selling, without it having some advantage over the other lense.
I'm still going to look a bit further, but it seems to me that the general consensus over here is that it doesn't really matter what kind of glass you pick. It's hard for me to accept especially without any basis for that, and without any objective testing done about it.
Bookmarks