Originally posted by timh Certainly some of that too! Bottom line, I'm pretty sure these polluting factors contribute more to the discussion than the qualities of the lens being discussed - to the extent that the discussion becomes useless. It's pointless arguing.
I agree with you on this point. The entire thread started trying to answer a question that can't be quantitatively answer. My first few replies to this thread were focused on the fact that the premise of the question itself was flawed (trying to determine the "value" of one lens compared to another, but things devolved quickly from there.
Originally posted by timh Aah, "fact"? I'm under the impression that proponents of the FA31 generally argue that it's the unmeasurable qualities of the lens which make it so special.
Perhaps one day there will be some way to scientifically and empirically measure "lens pleasingness".
There are some indisputable ways in which the FA31 is superior. The FA31 is superior to the DA40 in terms of aperture speed. The FA31 is superior to the FA35 in terms of build quality. But you're right, once you get past the measurable, physical differences between the lens (and possibly the differences in MTF charts, which may or may not be meaningful), there isn't a good way to
scientifically and empirically measure "lens pleasingness". It is precisely for that reason that I often suggest that if you're interested in the FA31, and can afford to rent/buy it, that is the best way to determine whether it's worth the expense compared to other lenses.