Settling the lens issue.

[AndySig]

I'm relatively new to rangefinders so bear with me if this has been answered before. People often state strong preferences for e.g. various versions of the same Leica lens for a given focal length. Then somebody else praises Zeiss and then another manufacturer comes up. There's also often someone who says, "Yeah but they are all brilliant lenses".

Now putting MTF charts aside, has anybody ever done a serious comparison with a camera on a tripod pointing at a real world subject e.g. a house and then photographed it using all the leading contenders for the best 35 mm M fit lens? Then of course printed the pics in the same way.

It would be an interesting experiment, especially if you chose someone who was not particularly into photography to choose what they thought was the best final image (which is of course what counts).

 

[tbarker13]

This is really just an impossible exercise. Everyone sees things differently. And people tend to like different features of lenses.
You'd have to start by defining what you mean by "best."
Best wide open?
Best absolute sharpness?
Best character?
Best bokeh?

A lot of us on this forum (myself included) have spent money and time chasing this dream of the perfect lens (as well as camera, bag, etc). But it doesn't exist. Just find something that works best for you and make images.

 

[jsrockit]

Just find something that works best for you and make images.

Yep, and that is why the OP has seen the "Yeah but they are all brilliant lenses" line... because they all work. It's only a matter of preference.

 

[AndySig]

I was expecting answers like that. Perhaps to phrase it another way: assuming that a lens meets minimal technical criteria, then the results it produces are simply a matter of taste. That is why I said that it would be good to get a relatively neutral party to judge the prints. It's no good having a lens which has the best ever pq² rating (I just made that up) if you don't actually like the pictures you can produce with it.

All that said, I thought the thread worth starting because you do seem to get a few people claiming that such and such a lens is simply the best ever made when what they perhaps mean is that that is the lens with which they can best get their vision onto photographic paper.

 

[pphuang]

Just to avoid re-inventing the wheel...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42077

In the end, it really doesn't matter - the "best" lens is the one that inspires you to go out and take great pictures.

 

[tlitody]

I was expecting answers like that. Perhaps to phrase it another way: assuming that a lens meets minimal technical criteria, then the results it produces are simply a matter of taste. That is why I said that it would be good to get a relatively neutral party to judge the prints. It's no good having a lens which has the best ever pq² rating (I just made that up) if you don't actually like the pictures you can produce with it.

All that said, I thought the thread worth starting because you do seem to get a few people claiming that such and such a lens is simply the best ever made when what they perhaps mean is that that is the lens with which they can best get their vision onto photographic paper.

You don't get it. You need to change your mindset. You can not measure image quality by numbers. You measure technical qualities by numbers. They are not the same thing. Once you get over the technical and progress to the aesthetic qualities of a print from a given lens, then everyone has preferences for one over another. No one lens is better than the next in the real world. They are all good depending on your subjective criteria which you haven't specified. Unless of course you are a scientist. See my signature.

 

[oftheherd]

Just to avoid re-inventing the wheel...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42077

In the end, it really doesn't matter - the "best" lens is the one that inspires you to go out and take great pictures.

You might also want to look at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41084 for more comparisons. The search for the user name Raid, the keep checking backwards until you find the thread he did on the comparisons of lenses. I think he also did one of 50mm lenses. Be patient, if someone doesn't have that bookmarked and can post the thread URL, it will take you a while to find them.

Even so, what has been posted above about each individual having to decide what look he likes still applies.

 

[AndySig]

You don't get it. You need to change your mindset. You can not measure image quality by numbers. You measure technical qualities by numbers. They are not the same thing. Once you get over the technical and progress to the aesthetic qualities of a print from a given lens, then everyone has preferences for one over another. No one lens is better than the next in the real world. They are all good depending on your subjective criteria which you haven't specified. Unless of course you are a scientist. See my signature.

But that is just what I am getting at. Ultimately it is the aesthetic qualities which the lens produces which matter and then it is a question of how much the aesthetic values of the photographer chime with those of the viewer.

I assume that when people claim that a particular lens is the best (without providing technical detail) that they are making aesthetic claims for the results produced by that lens.

 

[tbarker13]

But that is just what I am getting at. Ultimately it is the aesthetic qualities which the lens produces which matter and then it is a question of how much the aesthetic values of the photographer chime with those of the viewer.

I assume that when people claim that a particular lens is the best (without providing technical detail) that they are making aesthetic claims for the results produced by that lens.

I'm a little lost here. If this is what you are getting at, then why suggest a test? There are no technical details that can be used to back up one's own taste. We simply like what we like.
This is a little like walking into an ice cream parlor and asking which is the best flavor.

 

[braver]

You've got to remember that although the word 'quality' has been quite abused by marketing, it's real meaning is this: the amount in which something serves the goal it was designed or chosen for.

The best quality lens that was designed to be sharp, is the one that is sharpest.
The best quality lens that was designed to have smooth bokeh, is the one that has the smoothest bokeh.
Lenses have all these characteristics, and only you can weigh them and make a personal decision on what you find the best quality. Just as everyone will find their own favorites in a book of HCB photographs.

What you should be looking for are these characteristics though:

The best quality lens that was designed for you to make photographs with, is the lens that you take the best photographs with.
The best quality lens that was designed for you to enjoy making photographs with, is the lens that you enjoy using the most.

I'm afraid this also means that you won't know until you try. If you've been in this game for a while you know this is true, no matter how many books Raid and Puts write on the matter.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The only way to truly settle the "lens issue" is to get the lens and try it out for yourself.

 

[FrankS]

They are all good. What's behind the lens, and the camera, is infinitely more important. Just find a lens that produces results that look "best" to you. Others may agree or disagree with your choice, but that hardly matters. There. Settled. 🙂

 

[L David Tomei]

This seems to be a sensitive issue judging from the tone of the responses.

Raid (see: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=42077) does make a comparison similar to that suggested by Andysig but it is only a simple comparison of several lenses and, in my opinion, not intended to be a definitive one. However, there are other more rigorous comparisons in the "literature"... spend some time with your favorite search engine.

I, too, often wonder where the hyperbole comes from when I read how someone can always recognize a Nikon lens, or the Leica glow is wonderful, or how contrasty their Zeiss lens may be... well, I would be hard pressed to identify the lens manufacturer that took a particular photo, perhaps just whether the lens was very good, or really bad. Then again, maybe I don't have that "eye". God bless you if you can.

When I was a young guy, we argued about whether a Ford 427 was better than a Chevy big block, or a Mopar Hemi... As if cars, and lenses, were made by some guy in a shop one by one. They aren't. these lenses (and cars) were made by big corporations and the performance is normally very comparable, or they wouldn't be competitive. ...and lenses are often like wine, the more expensive, the higher the performance. But price isn't much good when looking for the "best" lens either.

So, what does Andysig's original post mean to me? It means that there is far too much arbitrary hyperbole being bandied about regarding the virtues or shortcoming of commercially available camera lenses produced by the millions by big corporations competing in the same market place. All of that quite understandably results in honest questions such as posed by Andysig.

 

[kully]

I think if you showed a series of photos of a house to someone who wasn't really in to photography, they'd get bored, point out one at random and walk away muttering about the sad feck who asked them to participate in the exercise.

I'm not trying to be rude, but forget 'best' as nearly everyone in the thread has already said, there is only 'best' for you.

There are two sides to photography - enjoying the technical side and the artistic side. Neither side is bad and normally any photographer has a mix of the two. However, you should understand to which side someone leans whilst reading what they have to say, as it might not be your side.

Pop up a post with what you're after (35mm, 50mm, 28mm, fast, slow, what you will photograph &c.) and you'll get lots of advice.

 

[nikon_sam]

Knowing what a certain lens will give you is one thing, liking what it gives is another, knowing when to use a certain lens for whatever situation yet another...
Most people can't tell the difference...they'll like what they like just because...
You could take 20 pictures of the same scene with 20 different lenses and most would say they're exactly the same...or they may pick out one or two that they like but cannot exactly explain why or say "It just looks better than the others..."
I know what to expect from my Yashicamat 124, when I want that look I use it...I know that if I use that camera with Neopan 400 developed in Rodinal and printed on Ilford paper I get a print I'm most happy with and can say that others do like also...bottom line that's what really matters...

 

[tbarker13]

This seems to be a sensitive issue judging from the tone of the responses.

Perhaps. But it could also be that this is simply a topic that never dies. Every Internet forum I've ever inhabited has its own version of the OP's question.
But no matter how clever one is in the phrasing of the question, there will never be a definitive answer. Because it doesn't exist.

 

[L David Tomei]

Perhaps. But it could also be that this is simply a topic that never dies. Every Internet forum I've ever inhabited has its own version of the OP's question.
But no matter how clever one is in the phrasing of the question, there will never be a definitive answer. Because it doesn't exist.

Yes... but there is an awful lot of bs terminology thrown around regarding the performance of one lens over another. After working of racing engines for years I finally realized that the reason I loved Fords was because they were blue. ...so goes my love for Leicas.

Ciao from Italy.

 

[FrankS]

In the film world, choice of film type, developer, developing technique, paper choice, and printing technique, will all have a greater effect on the look of the final image than which lens (same focal length, normal max aperture) is used. In the digital world ...

But really, the creative/artistic sensibilities and capabilities of the photographer is way more significant in the final image than these technical aspects.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

It would be an interesting experiment, especially if you chose someone who was not particularly into photography to choose what they thought was the best final image (which is of course what counts).

Whether it be a layperson, a professional photographer, an art critic, or what have you; bottomline: We all see and perceive the world around us differently.

take the following idioms:

"Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder"

"One man's junk is another man's treasure"

Your standards are different from mine, which in turn are different than Joe Blow's, etc.

I think the following definitition pretty much says it all:

aesthetics:

derived from the Greek αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos, meaning "esthetic, sensitive, sentient"), which in turn was derived from αἰσθάνομαι (aisthanomai, meaning "I perceive, feel, sense").

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Almost all the lenses we talk about here are technically competent--that's a given. And so not many people on this forum bother with specs, charts, brick wall photos, and the like. We mostly talk about differences in handling, character, and historical significance, almost entirely because it's fun. Nobody ever expects to settle any "debate"...it's more of a rolling discussion, for people who are interested in art, journalism, and imaging technology.