>>26801868m is minimum focus distance on my 1000mm's, I don't know of any that need more than that distance.
Problem is that most of us are completely incapable of setting up an objective test with minimal variables.
Even if we found a high res sheet of some print media that was available and uniformly produced over the whole world, like a newspaper or magazine, we would still have people who can't detect or measure how disgusting their inner elements are, or establishing exactly the same lighting and lens stability.
It sounds fairly do-able, but in practice we are splitting hairs when attempting to differentiate the quality of a family of fairly low contrast/resolution lenses, so the tests need to eliminate all secondary and irrelevent variables.
Even if I had the couple of lenses I don;t already own, it would still be tricky to conduct a test series that was uniform for all of the lenses.
>>2680196No. It's about an *objective* means of comparing lenses image quality. Subjective tests mean nothing for making useful comparisons... or choosing the sharpest, highest contrast lens.
