Rafael
Mandlerian
"The 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH is the best 50mm optic ever produced."
"The new CV 35/1.4 Nokton is a dog."
"The Noctilux is a very good performer."
"The Noctilux is a very poor performer."
“This lens is better than that lens.”
What do these few examples of lens evaluations have in common? Apart from being easily found in multiple incarnations through a google search, I believe that each is nonsensical. So, the following rant is my plea for unqualified evaluations such as best, worst, better, and worse to be excised from discussions of different lenses.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I do not suffer from misplaced democratic sensibilities. I certainly do not believe that all lenses are made equal. And I am not at all in agreement with those who exhort us to "just get out and shoot" rather than discussing and comparing different lenses. In fact, I think that lens selection is a very important part of the photographic process (at least it is for mine). My point is simply that the notions of a best and worst lens, or even a better and worse lens, make no sense at all.
Notions of best, worst, better, and worse imply a fixed set of evaluative parameters. When these parameters are not made explicit (i.e. when someone claims that one lens is simply better than another, or that a particular lens is good, or bad, or the best, or the worst), the implication is that all photographers seek exactly the same results in their photography, have exactly the same tastes, shoot the same subjects under the same conditions on the same film that they then develop in the same way, print in the same way, show in the same way, etc... Obviously, such a suggestion is ridiculous. However, many of the questions about lenses (e.g. "what is the best 35mm lens under $1000?") and statements about lenses (e.g. "the 35/2 Summicron ASPH is the best 35mm RF lens.") rely on this absurd suggestion about the uniformity of photography and photographers for their coherence.
Though entirely obvious, the fact that comparative evaluations only make sense when the point of comparison is specified seems often forgotten. Also seemingly forgotten is the fact that these types of evaluations make no sense at all when the points of comparison are subjective. Favourite and Best are not synonyms.
It seems to me that discussions of why people prefer particular lenses over others, or of the situations in which they choose one lens over another, are far more useful than simplistic claims that one lens is better than another, or that particular lenses are either good or bad.
Good in terms of what? Worse in terms of what? As Inspector Clouseau would say, “Aahhh, now we are getting somewhere!”
Just my 2 cents.
"The new CV 35/1.4 Nokton is a dog."
"The Noctilux is a very good performer."
"The Noctilux is a very poor performer."
“This lens is better than that lens.”
What do these few examples of lens evaluations have in common? Apart from being easily found in multiple incarnations through a google search, I believe that each is nonsensical. So, the following rant is my plea for unqualified evaluations such as best, worst, better, and worse to be excised from discussions of different lenses.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I do not suffer from misplaced democratic sensibilities. I certainly do not believe that all lenses are made equal. And I am not at all in agreement with those who exhort us to "just get out and shoot" rather than discussing and comparing different lenses. In fact, I think that lens selection is a very important part of the photographic process (at least it is for mine). My point is simply that the notions of a best and worst lens, or even a better and worse lens, make no sense at all.
Notions of best, worst, better, and worse imply a fixed set of evaluative parameters. When these parameters are not made explicit (i.e. when someone claims that one lens is simply better than another, or that a particular lens is good, or bad, or the best, or the worst), the implication is that all photographers seek exactly the same results in their photography, have exactly the same tastes, shoot the same subjects under the same conditions on the same film that they then develop in the same way, print in the same way, show in the same way, etc... Obviously, such a suggestion is ridiculous. However, many of the questions about lenses (e.g. "what is the best 35mm lens under $1000?") and statements about lenses (e.g. "the 35/2 Summicron ASPH is the best 35mm RF lens.") rely on this absurd suggestion about the uniformity of photography and photographers for their coherence.
Though entirely obvious, the fact that comparative evaluations only make sense when the point of comparison is specified seems often forgotten. Also seemingly forgotten is the fact that these types of evaluations make no sense at all when the points of comparison are subjective. Favourite and Best are not synonyms.
It seems to me that discussions of why people prefer particular lenses over others, or of the situations in which they choose one lens over another, are far more useful than simplistic claims that one lens is better than another, or that particular lenses are either good or bad.
Good in terms of what? Worse in terms of what? As Inspector Clouseau would say, “Aahhh, now we are getting somewhere!”
Just my 2 cents.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
work with what you got.
you might amaze yourself.
you might amaze yourself.
sockeyed
Well-known
And real-world shooting with a lens will often hide the shortcomings you can uncover through rigorous and contrived testing.
For example, my CV 40mm Nokton can be shown to have less-pleasant OOF rendering under the right (or wrong) conditions, yet when I've taken this lens out into the field I've never produced an image that was compromised in the slightest by this perceived shortcoming.
For example, my CV 40mm Nokton can be shown to have less-pleasant OOF rendering under the right (or wrong) conditions, yet when I've taken this lens out into the field I've never produced an image that was compromised in the slightest by this perceived shortcoming.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
True so true ... I have a 50mm Collapsable Summicron which came on a camera that takes very nice photos. For some reason I held it up to the light one night and had a close look at it ... cleaning marks and a good sized scratch on the front element.
I have always been very happy with it's performance and can't fault it aside from not being a big fan of tab focusing lenses. Over analysis of optics is tragically wasteful and is time that could be spent out taking photos ... with a Holga even!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Maybe a unpretentious Pinot Noir with hints of ...
Maybe a unpretentious Pinot Noir with hints of ...
When I read technical test-based or personal experience-based assessements of lenses, the first thought that always occurs to me is "What would the print look like on my living room wall?" In this medium of the internet its pretty much impossible to get that kind of sensual information. Images shown on the web are just so many pixels and I doubt that it'll ever approach the feeling when you see the real deal in a gallery.
So, what then? I wonder if something akin to wine reviews could be used. When I read wine reviews, I assume that the person doing them has a nose and pallet much more sensitive and refined than the rest of us mere mortals. So when I read there review and hear that a wine has "a big full flavor with hints of blackberries and chocolate", I have some sort of physical response to those words and make decisions accordingly. Could lens reviews be done in a similar way? What if someone with a refined sense of color, contrast, etc. were to make pictures with each lens, put the prints up in their living room, study them for a time, and then report to us their sensual response. I might be more willing to use this kind of information, rather than the dry technical statistics so often used these days.
Maybe a unpretentious Pinot Noir with hints of ...
When I read technical test-based or personal experience-based assessements of lenses, the first thought that always occurs to me is "What would the print look like on my living room wall?" In this medium of the internet its pretty much impossible to get that kind of sensual information. Images shown on the web are just so many pixels and I doubt that it'll ever approach the feeling when you see the real deal in a gallery.
So, what then? I wonder if something akin to wine reviews could be used. When I read wine reviews, I assume that the person doing them has a nose and pallet much more sensitive and refined than the rest of us mere mortals. So when I read there review and hear that a wine has "a big full flavor with hints of blackberries and chocolate", I have some sort of physical response to those words and make decisions accordingly. Could lens reviews be done in a similar way? What if someone with a refined sense of color, contrast, etc. were to make pictures with each lens, put the prints up in their living room, study them for a time, and then report to us their sensual response. I might be more willing to use this kind of information, rather than the dry technical statistics so often used these days.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, here is what I have to say :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58172
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58172
back alley
IMAGES
marc, i agree completely...except that new lenses ARE better than old lenses.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That said ... I quite like the thread that compares the results of the 40mm Summicron C to the 40mm Nokton.
Dam ... I wasn't going to look at that ... luckily I have neither lens.
Dam ... I wasn't going to look at that ... luckily I have neither lens.
Rafael
Mandlerian
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we should refrain from comparing or evaluating different lenses. Nor am I claiming that the differences between lenses are not real. I'm simply arguing that we should compare lenses in ways that make sense. To claim that one lens is better than another is nonsensical. On the other hand, one can certainly argue that a particular lens is more resistant to flare than another, or that one prefers the handling or the OOF rendering of a particular lens over that of another.
The best lens that I have cannot be used to take photographs. But if you want to do a Fourier Transform, it is the one to use.
My $10 50/1.9 Xenon makes great photographs. My Mom likes them.
So if you like the pictures that the lens makes, and even more importantly, if your Mom does not need to make Fourier Transforms with it, just use it and forget the reviews.
My $10 50/1.9 Xenon makes great photographs. My Mom likes them.
So if you like the pictures that the lens makes, and even more importantly, if your Mom does not need to make Fourier Transforms with it, just use it and forget the reviews.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you can be bothered to read all the different opinions -- and it's a big if -- then you can often perceive some sort of consensus.
Sometimes it's a sort of bimodal consensus (if such a thing could exist) where opinions are quite strongly polarized, with one group praising the lens and others rubbishing it; there is little or no middle ground. At that point it is usually quite easy to decide which opinion you are likely to find more useful, not least from whether the opinions are supported with real pictures or coffee cups and fence posts.
You can't really judge the technical quality of the images from the web, but I have a simple (if brutal and egocentric) criterion for judging: would I be proud of, or at least, pleased with, that picture? After all, if I'm thinking of buying the lens in question, it's my photography that is affected: no-one else's. If it's been used for the sort of pictures I want to take, and the user is pleased, then there's a chance I might like it too.
Almost any lens can be used to make great pictures, but, as the OP says, some are better for some applications than others; to which I'd add that by the same token, the limitations of some are so significant that they are next to useless for some applications.
Cheers,
R.
Sometimes it's a sort of bimodal consensus (if such a thing could exist) where opinions are quite strongly polarized, with one group praising the lens and others rubbishing it; there is little or no middle ground. At that point it is usually quite easy to decide which opinion you are likely to find more useful, not least from whether the opinions are supported with real pictures or coffee cups and fence posts.
You can't really judge the technical quality of the images from the web, but I have a simple (if brutal and egocentric) criterion for judging: would I be proud of, or at least, pleased with, that picture? After all, if I'm thinking of buying the lens in question, it's my photography that is affected: no-one else's. If it's been used for the sort of pictures I want to take, and the user is pleased, then there's a chance I might like it too.
Almost any lens can be used to make great pictures, but, as the OP says, some are better for some applications than others; to which I'd add that by the same token, the limitations of some are so significant that they are next to useless for some applications.
Cheers,
R.
vha
Isn't it coffee time ?
Its all about personal taste. Some like uber sharp lenses, some dont. Some like vignetting, some dont. etc.... Look at pics. Buy lenses used. Sell them for the same cash if you dont like them and try another. Simple.
absolute agreeable , just having some minor problems with the selling part thou . .
Personal taste IS highly personal, and therefore hard to discuss . . .
But as said, if you have a lens you like, use it ..
vha
John LeBeau
Member
I am by no means an expert, but the first lens I acquired after buying my Leica was a 1930's, nickel plated, uncoated, 50mm Elmar. Probably not state of the art. Any camera can take a snapshot, I would like to think that we strive for more than that. One can be equally moved by a Wyeth or a Picasso even though one attempted realism while the other, well, didn't.
Spider67
Well-known
An analogy: In some historybooks abozt WW II there you'll find (superflous) characterizations of small arms. And of course evrey nation claims to have had the best bolt action rifle (except the Russians they had the sturdiest one)
Interstingly it was perfectly feasible to kill President Kennedy using one of the worst ones.
Intersting analogy as this kind of quality talk is also male dominated and fills whole pages.
Interstingly it was perfectly feasible to kill President Kennedy using one of the worst ones.
Intersting analogy as this kind of quality talk is also male dominated and fills whole pages.
kevin m
Veteran
In your opinion. Personally, I'll take a Mandler-designed lens over all the uber-sharp, Aspherical replacements. That man knew how to make "flaws" work to his advantage.
BillP
Rangefinder General
> ..except that new lenses ARE better than old lenses.
Hmm. Might have a point. I shot a roll with a 1935 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 and a 1959 Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 last week. The Nikkor had the edge wide-open, but by F4 the CZJ was stunning.
Hmm. Might have a point. I shot a roll with a 1935 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 and a 1959 Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 last week. The Nikkor had the edge wide-open, but by F4 the CZJ was stunning.