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.
