Hi, Ed -
Originally Posted by edz
I think that we are largely in agreement about lenses from 50 - 100 years ago. Knowing that lenses with uncorrected aberrations were the best that they could do at the time, lens makers offered lenses with different "looks", i.e. different degrees of corrections of different aberrations. These compromises were the best way of meeting the varying needs of different photographers who were using lenses for a wide variety of purposes. However, the goals of the lens makers remained the same: as accurate a 2-dimensional representation of reality as they could achieve. With aspherics, computer-assisted-design, newer coatings, etc they have come closer to achieving this today. Erwin Putts, whom you quote elsewhere, makes exactly this point in his writings.
Regarding Zeiss marketing claims, I agree that the Zeiss marketing Dept. has been over the top. But I do not agree that their claims "violate the laws of physics." Rather, they seem to have stressed technical qualities of their lenses that will not make much difference to the vast majority of photographers. So, I don't want to defend their marketing decisions. However, the claim of 400 lpm was explored on photo.net 9 months ago. Surprisingly, Kornelius J. Fleischer, the man who did the testing, posted on this discussion & explained his claims. He also addressed Erwin's criticism. You can read his post at the link provided below & make up your own mind on this one. I, for one, am convinced that in this case, Erwin got it wrong & is not the expert of choice here.