Settling the lens issue.

Lenses are sort of like diet books. If there was any one that was the 'best' there wouldn't be thousands of others.

On the other hand, I think my 3,5cm F/1.8 Nikkor may be the best lens ever... hmm :confused:
 
If you are satisfied with the prints or digital images that you are getting then it doesn't really make any difference. I make prints usually no larger than 10X15. They usually look great no matter if it's a Leica lens, Zeiss or Cosina Voigtlander. So, why worry about all the comparison testing? There is no single right choice anyway. Jim
 
John Van Stelten just e-mailed me letting me know that my uncoated Elmar 50 is on it's way back, I have a sneaking suspicion that IT may be the best lens. We'll have to see.
 
AndySig said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not possible to have a neutral party. What you are suggesting is that one person can be the arbiter of taste. People who think they are that person fall squarely into the categories of snob or pseud. The best you can do is to have consensus with any group and the smart groups recognise that other groups may arrive at a different consensus. A group may consist of only one person and frequently does when it comes to lenses. And when someone says this is the best lens ever, they just mean today this is my favourite lens and I'm infatuated with it. Tomorrow they may change their mind. People are like that.
 
I think there are definitive answers to the OPs question.
But those answers are necessarily different for each photographer.

Which means, I think, that there is no one "best" 50mm lens but there is one "best for me" 50mm lens--or, more likely, there is one "best for me for this purpose for this time" 50mm lens.

And I can't tell you what the best lens is. At best, I can tell you why I prefer what I have chosen in such a way that you can decide if my choice might be worth trying to see if it works for you.

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it would be good for you to judge the prints. Exactly because it is a matter of taste. And your taste will be different than mine as mine is different than anyone else's.

A more specific example: I own, like, and use primarily FSU lenses. Most of mine were made in the 1950s. For me, they are the best because they meet my criteria.

Certainly lens designs and technology have advanced since then so my choice is not based on "technical criteria" alone--or even in major part--but is based on my wholly subjective criteria.

What I can and will suggest to you is that you do look at the kinds of comparisons you are interested in but not to bother with other peoples' conclusions. When you see that a particular lens captures things in a way that you like regardless of it's presumed technical qualities, then that may be a lens you should try to see if it really does meet your own subjective criteria.

Rob
 
I largely agree with you. If every time somebody were inclined to say, "The X lens is the best ever for y purposes", they actually said something along the lines of, "My preferred or favourite lens for y purposes is the X for the following reasons..." then I think there would be little debate and a relatively wide acceptance of other people's takes on lenses.

I raised this whole issue because since switching to rangefinders around Christmas time, I have been struck by the fact that in the rangefinder world, people can get quite passionate about lenses, perhaps(?) more so than in other areas of photography.

As for the "neutral" judge idea: if you let a number of people who know little or nothing about lenses look at the pictures and asked them to pick what they thought was the "best" image, I would bet that there would be no clear winner because of the similarity of images. If you included a box on the form along the lines of, "Dunno, mate, they all look the same to me", I reckon you would find an awful lot of ticks in it.

Yes it would make sense for me to judge the prints if I were in the market for a particular type of lens but it seems to me that if somebody is maintaining that there is a best lens at a particular focal length, then that should be apparent to any observer ... obviously because the best lens should produce the best results.

Happily and sensibly, the consensus seems to be that the best lens is the one that works best for you.
 
Last edited:
kully said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, you too had the pleasure of David Spero Churches .... so sharp my eyes were bleeding by the time I'd got half way round.
 
Do other elderly members of the forum recall, as I seem to, that in pre-Internet days there was a lot less agonizing about lenses and a lot more shooting? One person might say of another's prized possession, "Oh, yeah, great lens," but there was a lot less of "Now I MUST find a Version 3 made on a Tuesday afternoon in Lent by Hans, with the numbers painted in by Lotte".

Sure, we used to switch lenses until we got one we liked -- I've been addicted to the 35/1.4 since about 1980, and bought a new one (still in use) immediately when the old one was stolen in '84 or so -- but I don't think we agonized about 'em as much, looking for differences we couldn't see but had heard about. Nor did we send our old Leicas to be drenched in oil by so-called 'experts' who pretended to give them a CLA.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
... even I got a bit paranoid at first "online" ... over it now I just get on with it, I'm now working on the premiss that if I like something the rest of the world will just have to put up with my choice
 
Roger Hicks said:
that in pre-Internet days there was a lot less agonizing about lenses and a lot more shooting? One person might say of another's prized possession, "Oh, yeah, great lens," but there was a lot less of "Now I MUST find a Version 3 made on a Tuesday afternoon in Lent by Hans, with the numbers painted in by Lotte".
Click to expand...

What's certainly changed with the internet is the fact that you can see tons of results from the lens, everyone has an opinion, and those opinions drive up prices when a lens gets momentum behind it as being the "it" lens.

What hasn't changed is G.A.S... people just used to go hang out at camera shops, camera swap meets, and look at Shutterbug in order to drool over gear instead of making photos (there is room for both as we all know).
 
Being practical myself (I don't think too well, so I don't think too often), I'd suggest you pull out your credit card, buy a 'Lux 50 ASPH, and shoot with it. Process and print your good ones. See what you've made. If it wows you, you've got something that works for you. If it doesn't, know that you need to work on your skills. In either case, shoot more. Print. See what you've done. Repeat until illness or death.

Well, well, you're not considering lenses anymore. No need. Only making photographs.

Mental note: take my own advice.
 
There are general comments that can apply. These might include:

- A tendency to flare

- Vignetting when shot wide open

- Barrel or pincushion distortion

Those are tangible qualities that can be seen. Nearly everything else is subjective.

Generally speaking, there probably are no poor quality lenses available new today.

Some buy because they like a particular manufacturer: Leica, Carl Zeiss, Cosina, Konica, etc. Some buy for price. Others buy based on the speed of the lens.

I probably would never buy a lens based on an MTF chart or technical specs.
 
MCTuomey said:
Being practical myself (I don't think too well, so I don't think too often), I'd suggest you pull out your credit card, buy a 'Lux 50 ASPH, and shoot with it. Process and print your good ones. See what you've made. If it wows you, you've got something that works for you. If it doesn't, know that you need to work on your skills. In either case, shoot more. Print. See what you've done. Repeat until illness or death.

Well, well, you're not considering lenses anymore. No need. Only making photographs.

Mental note: take my own advice.
Click to expand...

+1 :)

Here's a different perspective to the OP's question:

for myself, it's hard to say which lens is the best. And I do recognize some lens "signatures" in the pictures. People who look at my pics usually don't care ...

However: It's very clear when I don't like a lens. For handling, flare, vignetting, distortion, ... When it bothers me, it bothers me a lot. I have a couple of 50mm, 35mm and 28mm lenses I could mention, but they are popular with others (sometimes for the same exact "features" I dislike them for), so I'll refrain :)

Roland.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom