but I also feel like people loose [sic] their objectivity...
You surely know that "ad hominem" is considered a logic error,
and doesn't constitute evidence.
And we're really short of evidence here.
First, if you're bothered by it, get rid of the lens.
If you want to stay in Hassie, get a 100. No distortion, none. It was designed as an aerial mapping lens.
Expensive ? Pah, a bargain for what it does. Don't be cheap.
If you to keep the lens, comfort yourself in the fact that designing a relatively short f/2.8 lens (and not a 3.5) with balanced performance, you have to spread the inevitable errors around. And the good news is that there are no 80mm lenses that come close to the low distortion of the Planar.
And the distortion is no secret. I mean Hassie and Zeiss have been up front about this forever. That is the beauty of the system. No secrets, perfect documentation. Lots of choices. You can have exactly what you want.
Now, I would think that if you wanted to test the performance of this lens, you are going to need to tighten up your protocol. As SK Grimes used to say, "The test tests the tester." I'd be surprised if many of us could set up a camera accurately enough to be able to get good data from a distortion test.
One of the interesting things that can happen is that one might be shooting so close to a subject that the difference in magnification between the center of the field and the edges might cause the image to be drawn in a nonrectilinear way. But magnification difference isn't distortion. Perspective error can be troublesome, too. That is magnified by being close, as well.
I wonder what would be a good working distance to compare the center to the edges, without magnification being a factor ? Well, you'd need to have a magnification difference equal to or less than the suspected distortion !
Good luck.
You surely know that "ad hominem" is considered a logic error,
and doesn't constitute evidence.
And we're really short of evidence here.
First, if you're bothered by it, get rid of the lens.
If you want to stay in Hassie, get a 100. No distortion, none. It was designed as an aerial mapping lens.
Expensive ? Pah, a bargain for what it does. Don't be cheap.
If you to keep the lens, comfort yourself in the fact that designing a relatively short f/2.8 lens (and not a 3.5) with balanced performance, you have to spread the inevitable errors around. And the good news is that there are no 80mm lenses that come close to the low distortion of the Planar.
And the distortion is no secret. I mean Hassie and Zeiss have been up front about this forever. That is the beauty of the system. No secrets, perfect documentation. Lots of choices. You can have exactly what you want.
Now, I would think that if you wanted to test the performance of this lens, you are going to need to tighten up your protocol. As SK Grimes used to say, "The test tests the tester." I'd be surprised if many of us could set up a camera accurately enough to be able to get good data from a distortion test.
One of the interesting things that can happen is that one might be shooting so close to a subject that the difference in magnification between the center of the field and the edges might cause the image to be drawn in a nonrectilinear way. But magnification difference isn't distortion. Perspective error can be troublesome, too. That is magnified by being close, as well.
I wonder what would be a good working distance to compare the center to the edges, without magnification being a factor ? Well, you'd need to have a magnification difference equal to or less than the suspected distortion !
Good luck.