==============
On that we disagree. Remember that Gary cautions againt interpreting
his results as significant on partial grade levels. A B- lens may nor
be presumed to be inferior to a B+ lens
==============
Actually, here we agree. You can't state anything definitive about lenses
that are close in such data. But you can't say they are equal in performance
either just because the data show a gap that is within some bound, which was
your original claim. In fact, they could just as easily be farther apart than
the data show, as closer than the data show. My own testing results of both
the 200/4 (MC) and 200/5 (MC) were that the 200/4 was clearly better, and
Gary's data corroborates that. Thus, I will tend to place a little
higher significance in Gary's results on these two lenses than someone
who hasn't tested both lenses themselves.
Joseph
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|