How can you tell which lenses are good?

[back alley]

canonical

ca·non·i·cal [ kə nónnik'l ] or ca·non·i·c [ kə nónnik ]

adjective

Definitions:

1. arts of canon of works: relating to or belonging to the biblical canon or a canon of artistic works established as genuine and complete


2. religion following canon law: conforming to or authorized by canon law


3. conforming to general principles: conforming to accepted principles or standard practice



works for me 😉

joe

 

[ray_g]

silly me, I do what several of you have already suggested—I look at large numbers of photos from various galleries taken with a specific lens to get a better idea of the capabilities of the lens. Real world photography wins for me every time!

As others have suggested, I do this too. One of the most extensive galleries, and well sorted out by lens, camera, film etc, is on http://www.photosig.com.

A word of caution on relying too much on photos on the web - you need to realize the limitations involved such as the effects of file compression, monitor variability, scanner used, photoshop manipulation, etc.

 

[StuartR]

I definitely second what Ray just said. Images on the web owe as much or more to the photoshop skill of the photographer as to the lenses. I know that when I just started scanning and posting images on the web, they were far worse than they are now, despite in many cases being taken with the same camera, film, lenses and so forth. Among equivalent samples though, some differences should be noticeable.

And if this is more about how shooters tell good lenses, it is really a combination of factors. For me, it is about many things...resolution is only part of the story. Just as important are its resistance to flare, the way it depicts colors, the bokeh, how much if any distortion or vignetting there is. Also important is how consistent the lens is -- is it good at all or most apertures, or is it particularly weak wide open or do you lose a lot of contrast and resolution when it is at its smallest apertures? Ergonomics play no small part -- is it easy to handle, is it well-balanced, what is the focus throw like, is it too heavy to lug around in the field, but great in the studio? These are just of view of the many many factors that go into a good lens. I don't envy lens designers, it is such a huge juggling act. Worst of all (or best depending on your perspective), personal preference plays a huge role. For example, I absolutely love my 75 summilux, but many people just find it way too big and heavy to lug it around with them. Not many people will deny it is a great lens in terms of performance, but it is definitely an acquired taste from a users perspective.

 

[bmattock]

Well said, Stuart. The basis of the question is valid - which lens is 'best'; but the answer must necessarily be, 'best at *what*?'

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Will]

One example we've discussed a lot recently is the Canon 50mm f/0.95 lens for the Canon 7 and 7s cameras. Some of us who own these lenses absolutely love the unique image quality they produce at full aperture; other people, who either don't own them or used to own one but got rid of it, think they're simply "mushy" and not worth bothering with. Who's right? You are -- for the purposes of your own photography. You have to look at what the lens can do and decide for yourself whether or not you like the results.

True however is that many lenses have very individual "visual footprints" and my advice would be rather to watch photos shot with the lenses you are interested in, this will give you more help than a chart with numbers which are the result of a pseudo-sScientific test not earning that name. Ask photogs, not lens testers.

JLW pointed it the way it is, but the most important IMO is personal taste about lens performance. It doesn´t matter if the lens you have can resolve n lines per mm, as long as the picture you get is what you wanted.

Although we are technically foucs (RF forum 😀 ), we are using character and taste as benchmarks.

IMHO, the best lens is the one that have the character to match what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot...

 

[richard_l]

Yours may have been a mistake, Richard, so please do not take this personally - but in many threads here on RFF and elsewhere, the author insisted on writing Puts' name incorrectly as a form of insult.

I honestly somehow got the idea that his real name was Putz (a perfectly innocuous German word), and that he had Anglisized it to Puts because of the bad English (or is it Yiddish) connotation of Putz. I stand corrected.

Anyhow, I recommend his reviews only for comparison of one Leica lens to another, not for comparison to other brands, although he does have a very high opinion of Zeiss as well. Also he gave a good review of the CV 28mm Ultron, on the basis of which (along with other reviews) I bought, and with which I am very pleased.

Richard

 

[djon]

Puts also reviewed Pentax dslr very favoribly, creating a rukus among Leicapated types.