raid
Dad Photographer
When choosing a specific lens, quite often people take into account the postings online by users of such lenses so that a better decision can be made.
Of course, there are personal preferences that also play a role; is it a Leica/is it a Zeiss/ is it an M-Hexanon/is it a CV lens, ... etc.
There are also preferences based on size of the lens due to the use of the RF and of course due to having to carry the [heavy/light] lens.
Not to forget a very important factor for most people, it is the cost of the lens.
Many photographers like how one specific lens "paints" with light, and they are determined only to use such a lens.
What are the most important factors to you? Most factors are important, but which factor is the most important to you for a given focal length!
Of course, there are personal preferences that also play a role; is it a Leica/is it a Zeiss/ is it an M-Hexanon/is it a CV lens, ... etc.
There are also preferences based on size of the lens due to the use of the RF and of course due to having to carry the [heavy/light] lens.
Not to forget a very important factor for most people, it is the cost of the lens.
Many photographers like how one specific lens "paints" with light, and they are determined only to use such a lens.
What are the most important factors to you? Most factors are important, but which factor is the most important to you for a given focal length!
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Focal length is obviously the first factor in which lens to choose.
Second, if I know the potential shooting environment is dimly lit, a fast max aperture is a must.
Third, I'm a vintage lens enthusiast, so that equates to "how the lens draws" in the list of considerations.
Fourth, I consider the lens size. If I need a small package, then a collapsable lens is called for.
Does that make sense, Raid?
edit: Sorry, I responded for the view of which lens to choose to use from those that I own.
Second, if I know the potential shooting environment is dimly lit, a fast max aperture is a must.
Third, I'm a vintage lens enthusiast, so that equates to "how the lens draws" in the list of considerations.
Fourth, I consider the lens size. If I need a small package, then a collapsable lens is called for.
Does that make sense, Raid?
edit: Sorry, I responded for the view of which lens to choose to use from those that I own.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
picking a lens for buying/picking a lens for a shoot
picking a lens for buying/picking a lens for a shoot
Hi Frank,
Of course, I meant to say "for a given focal length".
Everything you said above makes sense.
I was more thinking of which lens to buy than which lens to choose from my camera bag. Of course, picking the right lens for a given photography opportunity is very important too, isn't it. :bang:
picking a lens for buying/picking a lens for a shoot
Hi Frank,
Of course, I meant to say "for a given focal length".
Everything you said above makes sense.
I was more thinking of which lens to buy than which lens to choose from my camera bag. Of course, picking the right lens for a given photography opportunity is very important too, isn't it. :bang:
FrankS
Registered User
From the view of buying a new lens, for me unfortunately, price is the number one factor to consider. As much as I'd like to try them, the Summiluxes and ASPH's are just not in my cards.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Like FrankS, cost has to be up high on the list. Beyond that, I look at my needs, then follow pretty much as FrankS mentioned in his first post. I want a focal length I need, I want sharpness and speed, and the look I think it provides. The alure to me counts as well. For instance, I like Zeiss glass. I am not even sure why other than I fell in love with the Zeiss T* lenses. So when I decided to really get a FSU camera, I looked at Kiev. It has the Zeiss formula, and will take Zeiss glass if I ever can afford it.
I know that doesn't comport with most peoples fascination with Leica or FSU copies of Leica, but it is just me.
I know that doesn't comport with most peoples fascination with Leica or FSU copies of Leica, but it is just me.
raid
Dad Photographer
I also like Zeiss glass, and I started using Zeiss lenses with my Rolleiflex SLR system many years ago. Shutterbug magazine had an article on how to get into owning and using Zeiss optics at affordable prices, and this is why I used the [unreliable] Rolleiflex SLR system against all logic.
With RF lenses and cameras, I started out with Leica. I somehow prefer old Zeiss optics and newer Leica optics. It's just a personal choice based on my own likings.
I pay a lot of attention to how RFF photographers choose their lenses. I really do. Sometimes I am convinced by the arguements for a given lens and often I am not convinced, but I take the comments into account. It is very important to me how a pre-war Sonnar 5cm 1.5 or 2.0 paint with light. Each has a great OOF and contrast personality, with great resolution. What is there not to like! Other lenses have other nice properties, and I like some lenses for what they will give me as options.
With RF lenses and cameras, I started out with Leica. I somehow prefer old Zeiss optics and newer Leica optics. It's just a personal choice based on my own likings.
I pay a lot of attention to how RFF photographers choose their lenses. I really do. Sometimes I am convinced by the arguements for a given lens and often I am not convinced, but I take the comments into account. It is very important to me how a pre-war Sonnar 5cm 1.5 or 2.0 paint with light. Each has a great OOF and contrast personality, with great resolution. What is there not to like! Other lenses have other nice properties, and I like some lenses for what they will give me as options.
Last edited:
kxl
Social Documentary
COST is the obvious #1 factor, since it is the only factor you listed that impacts your non-photography life (speaking for those who do not consider photography as a means of livelihood).
IOW, even if a lens has everything you've ever hoped for, but at a cost that would put your next mortgage payment in jeopardy, then you'd probably be hard-pressed to buy the lens.
Cheers.
IOW, even if a lens has everything you've ever hoped for, but at a cost that would put your next mortgage payment in jeopardy, then you'd probably be hard-pressed to buy the lens.
Cheers.
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Other factors: collecting contemporary kits!
The first three Ms fell into my lap by chance. Because they were only bodies I opted for a contemporary Summicron and Summaron as it was the "cheapest" way to a working kit. After assembling that first kit I fell in love with classic Leicas and before I knew I had more than 10 kits. I now mostly shoot with a "modern" M6 and latest 50mm and 35mm V4 Summicrons, though that didn't prevent the recent CL + 40mm Summicron to become part of the family.
The first three Ms fell into my lap by chance. Because they were only bodies I opted for a contemporary Summicron and Summaron as it was the "cheapest" way to a working kit. After assembling that first kit I fell in love with classic Leicas and before I knew I had more than 10 kits. I now mostly shoot with a "modern" M6 and latest 50mm and 35mm V4 Summicrons, though that didn't prevent the recent CL + 40mm Summicron to become part of the family.
DougFord
on the good foot
[FONT="]Size and weight are my paramount concerns. Compactness and light weight rule.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Within these constraints, I’ll weigh performance and price before making my decision.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Within these constraints, I’ll weigh performance and price before making my decision.[/FONT]
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have a couple of lenses that I own purely because of their predictable shortcomings ... and a couple because they have absolutely none ... so it is really apples and oranges!
This particular fast 50mm lens (posted image) goes absolutely troppo when aimed into strong light wide open ... it seems to smear the light around all over the place ... but that's why I own it!
Conversely ... my 50mm Hexanon in the same situation behaves immaculately.
This particular fast 50mm lens (posted image) goes absolutely troppo when aimed into strong light wide open ... it seems to smear the light around all over the place ... but that's why I own it!
Conversely ... my 50mm Hexanon in the same situation behaves immaculately.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Vfm. . . . . . .
raid
Dad Photographer
Benjamin,
What do you mean by your statement "vmf"?
What do you mean by your statement "vmf"?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I guess he means "value for money" (which seems kind of missing the point, because as I understand it the question concerns what constitutes "value").
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks! I must be getting old or something.
I posted this thread because it is about an issue that many of us go through as we target a lens for purchase.
In my case it is
o I go with a Leica lens that is expensive and older, or do I go with 2-3 modern lenses that may be equally sharp or sharper,and "equally well built"? What makes us decide which way to go with a lens?
gb hill
Veteran
Apart from cost my 1st choice is focal length. Also I factor in what I can expect out of a lens. I love the bokeh I get from my J-3. My voigtlander lenses are nice & sharp but I don't care for the bokeh when shooting at lights. I prefer oof to the starry streaks I get from the voigtlander lenses. One of the most suprising lenses I have is a industar 50/3.5 non collapsable I used recently on my Bessa R. for a 50mm lens it's a darn good lens for shooting portraits in b&w.
raid
Dad Photographer
Hi Doug,
The poll results show different preferences for other RFF members.Weight,size and brand seem to be of lower importance.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
of course the results of a lens is most important to anyone who uses their equipment, rather than wearing it as a statement, but cost come second for me. I can't afford/rationalize a Leica Summicron, but if a Canon lens comes close, either through reputation or the depositions of many others ( ) I will choose the next best that I can afford. With unlimited funds, I'd go top of the line every time.
) I will choose the next best that I can afford. With unlimited funds, I'd go top of the line every time.
raid
Dad Photographer
Jim,
I think that most RFF members has a limited budget for photo equipment.
If someone is at heart a collector, and if that person can afford it, she/he will maybe go for brand.
I think that most RFF members has a limited budget for photo equipment.
If someone is at heart a collector, and if that person can afford it, she/he will maybe go for brand.
Last edited:
Mablo
Well-known
My idea of having fun is trying to produce great photos with low monetary value equipment. I don't think I'll ever buy a Summilux even if I could afford it. I love photography but I don't take it seriously.
ferider
Veteran
If I would be a pro, and wanted the highest quality IQ, most reliable handling, etc., I would probably shoot Nikon or Canon DSLRS.
My main reason to use RFs as an amateur, is size/handling and access to hundreds of M/LTM lenses. So, next to price, size/handling and signature (including focal length and speed) are most important.
My main reason to use RFs as an amateur, is size/handling and access to hundreds of M/LTM lenses. So, next to price, size/handling and signature (including focal length and speed) are most important.
Last edited: