DougFord
on the good foot
[FONT="]Great glass is available in a myriad of deferring sizes and weights. Restricting my lens choices to my size/weight preferences; leaves me with a wide spectrum of performance/price alternatives that far exceeds my requirements. [/FONT]
raid
Dad Photographer
Yes, all mentioned factors are important. The small size and relatively lighter weight are very important. I can throw into a small camera bag a 28mm,35mm, 50,,and 90mm lens, and still feel comfortable carrying the equipment with one or two RF cameras.
larmarv916
Well-known
This "poll" is on surface a good idea...but missing the target. As it "lumps" together body, lens, as one combination of unknown type, and focal length as if all cameras are the same. So voting is now NOT possible as the questions a "Oxymoron" as the question is asking for a vote on issues that are not combined as one product.
That being said...if a poll was created that asked...when you purchase a lens for you camera. What is most important? Cost , Brand, Focal length or quality? The a simple vote would be answering a straight question.
Or... If you buy a camera body, which is the most important issue ? again you would get a straight and specific answer by the Vote.
As it stands...if there are 2 lenses..I need to see physical proof by direct comparison from negatives. Same F stop and focal distance on same object.
As camera bodies go if both cameras fit my lenses...then a comparison of my lens shooting photos in a similar test is best. But with a body you can tell by the feel and inspection of materials and action as it works. Bad sound or vibrations when working are always a bad sign of cheap quality.
All the Best...Laurance
That being said...if a poll was created that asked...when you purchase a lens for you camera. What is most important? Cost , Brand, Focal length or quality? The a simple vote would be answering a straight question.
Or... If you buy a camera body, which is the most important issue ? again you would get a straight and specific answer by the Vote.
As it stands...if there are 2 lenses..I need to see physical proof by direct comparison from negatives. Same F stop and focal distance on same object.
As camera bodies go if both cameras fit my lenses...then a comparison of my lens shooting photos in a similar test is best. But with a body you can tell by the feel and inspection of materials and action as it works. Bad sound or vibrations when working are always a bad sign of cheap quality.
All the Best...Laurance
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Well, I thought the poll got to the issue of what we, buyers of photo gear, are most effected by when looking at lenses. This is not a study to determine nuclear disarmament, but a question to people with a similar interest.
And this is not an "oxymoron." An oxymoron refers to a phrase that pairs two contradictory terms. One that I always see goes something like "The house was a little big," - "Little" and "Big" being opposites, his makes no real sense. Oddly enough, we all know what it means.
This thread is just a poll that asks for major considerations (in general) when buying gear, not as essay question.
And this is not an "oxymoron." An oxymoron refers to a phrase that pairs two contradictory terms. One that I always see goes something like "The house was a little big," - "Little" and "Big" being opposites, his makes no real sense. Oddly enough, we all know what it means.
This thread is just a poll that asks for major considerations (in general) when buying gear, not as essay question.
raid
Dad Photographer
I left the last option in the poll as "other" and I encouraged people to explain why it is "other". I knew well that it is a combination of factors for certain circumstances that most people would list as their option(s).
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Agreed. And with limited resources, I still seem spend more than I can afford.
Interesting replies.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No. More like comparing Apples to Rice Cakes
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Raid,
I started out with a Minolta CLE with 40 and 90 lenses. Loved them but ran into a Hexanon 50 for little money. That lens knocked my socks off. After that I spent my X-mas bonus on a Summilux 50 1.4 but was disappointed.
Eventually I acquired Hexanons 28, 50, 50/1.2 and 90. I had a 35 but sold that, must have been a Monday morning production. I twas good optically, but not build-wise. Six months ago found an L-Hexanon 35/2.0 which is brilliant. With the Hexes its about modern optical quality and build quality for me.
The Komuras I have found over the past years are all about vintage draw. The fact that they are also built as tanks is a nice bonus.
My only Leitz lens is a 1937 Summar, for the spherical abberation/swirly bokeh in B&W.
I have no lust for Leitz or Zeiss or CV lenses, would like a Nikkor 50/1.4 since Komura or Acall never made a 50.
I started out with a Minolta CLE with 40 and 90 lenses. Loved them but ran into a Hexanon 50 for little money. That lens knocked my socks off. After that I spent my X-mas bonus on a Summilux 50 1.4 but was disappointed.
Eventually I acquired Hexanons 28, 50, 50/1.2 and 90. I had a 35 but sold that, must have been a Monday morning production. I twas good optically, but not build-wise. Six months ago found an L-Hexanon 35/2.0 which is brilliant. With the Hexes its about modern optical quality and build quality for me.
The Komuras I have found over the past years are all about vintage draw. The fact that they are also built as tanks is a nice bonus.
My only Leitz lens is a 1937 Summar, for the spherical abberation/swirly bokeh in B&W.
I have no lust for Leitz or Zeiss or CV lenses, would like a Nikkor 50/1.4 since Komura or Acall never made a 50.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'Other' got my vote -- and 'other' is pure chance. Many of the lenses I have liked most, I expected to be indifferent to: 24 Summilux, 50 Noctilux and C-Sonnar, 75 Summilux, 90 Thambar, 135 Elmarit-M, for example. Others, I have approached with enthusiasm and found that for one reason or another, they offer no real advantages for me, over lenses I already own: 12/5.6 Heliar, 21 Summilux, 50/1.2 Canon, for example.
So when I review a lens, on my own site or in a magazine, I try to give a picture of what it can do; what it can't; whom it may suit; and whom it may not.
Cheers,
R.
So when I review a lens, on my own site or in a magazine, I try to give a picture of what it can do; what it can't; whom it may suit; and whom it may not.
Cheers,
R.
raid
Dad Photographer
Johan,
I make use of adapters to use old SLR lenses by Canon, Pentax, and by Minolta for use on RF cameras. The old Leica and Zeiss lenses are not just very well built but they have great glass too. They have character. In the case of the Summar, it can flare badly, so I have to watch how I use the Summar. The Summitar is close to the Summicron in overall performance, but the Summicron is more corrected across the lens. For some reason, I have never used an interchangeable RF Hexanon lens, but I love the Hexanons on my Konica RF cameras (Konica I, II, III. IIIM, Auto S2, S3).
amateriat
We're all light!
As far as using my Main Axe system is concerned, I didn't look at any single lens in a vacuum. Since I had a given number of lenses in mind (3), one major concern was a consistent optical signature between the three, rather than choosing one lens for one particular attribute, a second lens for a different attribute, etc. Therefore, I see all three lenses as a set.
Cost, of course, figures in the mix, but it is a mix, which includes general optical performance, build quality, size and weight. Timing was an X factor here as well: just as I was getting set to exit the SLR world, I took another close look at the Hexar RF, and recalled to the great time I had with my Hex AF, and, doing the math, realized i could put together a great two-body, three-lens system for about the same price as a certain other, recently-released AE RF and one used lens. Cost figures into this (again), but there was also a matter of the bang-for-the-buck reputation Konica has long had versus Leica's pedigree. I suspect a lot of us here have an X factor, based on wants/needs versus practical matters.
(Of course, the Leica M2, with its 35 f/2 Summi, doesn't exactly fit into this formula, as it arrived largely by chance, but I wouldn't kick it out of my camera bag, if you get my drift.)
- Barrett
Cost, of course, figures in the mix, but it is a mix, which includes general optical performance, build quality, size and weight. Timing was an X factor here as well: just as I was getting set to exit the SLR world, I took another close look at the Hexar RF, and recalled to the great time I had with my Hex AF, and, doing the math, realized i could put together a great two-body, three-lens system for about the same price as a certain other, recently-released AE RF and one used lens. Cost figures into this (again), but there was also a matter of the bang-for-the-buck reputation Konica has long had versus Leica's pedigree. I suspect a lot of us here have an X factor, based on wants/needs versus practical matters.
(Of course, the Leica M2, with its 35 f/2 Summi, doesn't exactly fit into this formula, as it arrived largely by chance, but I wouldn't kick it out of my camera bag, if you get my drift.)
- Barrett
kermaier
Well-known
I said "other", because I don't see that any one of those parameters is the clear driver of lens selection. First off, you forgot maximum aperture as an important criterion for many people. But in any case, the selection is a balancing trade-off between speed, size/weight, cost and drawing. Take as an analogy computer electronics: The old axiom puts speed, size and cost at the three points of a triangle; you can't mark a position at all three points simultaneously - you have to decide how close or far you need or are willing to be to each.
I think a much easier question to answer would be which of the criteria is the least important. In my case, it would be the brand of the lens.
Ari
I think a much easier question to answer would be which of the criteria is the least important. In my case, it would be the brand of the lens.
Ari
raid
Dad Photographer
Ari,
I was not after the easiest to answer question; many people mention size and weight as being important and many are loyal to one brand, but the majority of responses to the poll say something else is more important.
I was not after the easiest to answer question; many people mention size and weight as being important and many are loyal to one brand, but the majority of responses to the poll say something else is more important.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
One major concern of mine is focusing direction, and to a lesser extent which direction you turn the diaphragm ring to stop it down. The greatest optics are of no worth if in the heat of the moment your exposure was off or you missed the focus, or perhaps even missed the moment itself as you fumbled with the focus and diaphragm controls.
R
rpsawin
Guest
I look at all those factors and try to select the lens that represents the best overall value, IMHO, at the time.
Bob
Bob
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Other factors...: ergonomics, primarily, including size, weight (handling), vf, loudness of shutter. etc.
/
/
Mablo
Well-known
Hmmm... I just did. What does this say about my character?
raid
Dad Photographer
You are a good person?
cnphoto
Well-known
ergonomics and build quality. if something feels good in my hands i am more likely to use it, if it feels of good build quality i am more likely to have confidence in it and (again) use it more.
if something feels good then i enjoy the process more.
if something feels good then i enjoy the process more.
photo_trev
Member
ergonomics and usability - its a tool.