What lens characteristics are important to you?

[michaelwj]

1. Ergonomics. Includes things like size, focus throw, etc
2. System usability. How easy it is to use with my other lenses, filters, aperture direction, etc
3. Consistency. If it flares that’s okay, as long as I’m not surprised. I don’t like it when a lens flares or does something weird only when the sun is at a certain angle on the solstice while I stand on one foot.
4. Quality. I don’t want it to break or go out of whack.

Other considerations are on a case by case basis. There is a place for sharp corrected lenses and for uncorrected lenses, a place for slow and fast lenses. But the top four are pretty universal (to much more than just lenses).

 

[Sumarongi]

What doesn't matter:
...
9. Microcontrast (not even sure this exists)

Exactly 😀

Can someone explain what is "micro contrast" to me? I see the term a lot but can't find a comprehensive definition of it anywhere on the net, in all three languages I speak.

Global contrast is the maximum difference between the blackest and whitest points in an image
Micro contrast is the maximum difference between adjacent “pixels”. It’s like the unsharp mask in photoshop, increasing the contrast at an edge. I don’t like the term, it reeks of baloney.

Regarding photography, a completely meaningless neologism of the 2010 years...

 

[RichC]

Exactly 😀

Regarding photography, [micro-contrast is] a completely meaningless neologism of the 2010 years...

As far as lenses go, yes: different lenses simply have more or less contrast... lenses can't have micro-contrast, as it needs to be added intelligently (i.e. by computer algorithms).

It does make sense in digital post-production, though: you can adjust the contrast normally (i.e. in a coarse way, between large groups of pixels), or in a more targeted way (between small groups of pixels). The latter essentially makes fine detail stand out.

The raw converter I use - Capture One - calls micro-contrast "structure": see halfway down https://imagealchemist.net/capture-one-clarity/. The examples it gives are severely overdone to show the effect clearly. I find a smidgen goes a long way...

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

As cheap as possible, and as much flare and vignetting as possible. Not so difficult to find these qualities combined, at least as long as there are millions of Soviet lenses to get.

 

[daveleo]

(I use mostly vintage MF lenses on digital Fuji bodies.)
Important parameters: Handling, weight, size, price, color interpretation, balance&tradeoff of sharpness and "character", flare resistance, tend to like "contrasty".
Physical dislikes: thin focus ring, too short focus throw, too long and heavy

 

[02Pilot]

I like lenses that don't actively annoy me in use and that produce interesting results. I dislike lenses that produce results that bore me.

 

[valdas]

I have noticed that many are quite indifferent to bokeh... It would be quite high on the list for me - I hate the "nervous" bokeh.... and don't care that much if bricks are not that well aligned...

 

[charjohncarter]

Reasonably sharp across the field without stopping down too much.

Decent contrast.

Accurate color rendition, prefer a bit warmer then cooler.

Low distortion.

Low vignetting.

Resists flare.

Minimal or no color fringing.

Neutral bokeh.

This sounds a lot like my little 50mm Elmar. Maybe that is why I like it so much.

The 50mm Elmar (f 3.5) is the benchmark where I start when comparing too.

 

[xayraa33]

Rich creamy bokeh.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I dislike lenses that produce results that bore me.

If my results are boring, I don't blame it on the lenses.

 

[Bill Clark]

My important list:

That the lens always works. When I turn the digital camera on it works with the lens, always.

Quality of product is very important to me. It has to stand up to the rigors of working some gigs for 9 plus hours. That means all day and late into the night. (when I was working!)

That I can buy the lens I need is very important. Some camera manufacturers don’t offer what I need.

I need the camera brand that will work best for me. The lens I used the most, in the past, is the 24-70 f2.8.

Your title says lens characteristics but your message talks about optical. I only Am interested in what I described here. The optical characteristics I believe are excellent with the lenses I have bought, at least from the camera manufacturers I have used. My biggest enlargement, I still have a couple samples now in my garage, I had made is 30” x 40”. Try doing that with 35mm film!

I only buy lenses with the same name as the camera I use. Exceptions to this are medium format cameras I own where Zeiss is the prominent manufacturer.

The other items you mentioned I really don’t study this. I’ll leave that for other folks that work at the factories.

 

[hendriphile]

The big one for me is a generally pleasing rendition of the scene/subject, which is more often that not a consequence of the optical formula. Second is a gentle contrast which gives way to nice long tonal scale. Finally, a lack of distortion. If these three are satisfied, I'm probably giving the lens serious consideration unless the build quality, size, etc is a problem.

The above translates to lenses like: 50/2 Summicron V1, 75/3.5 Rolleiflex Tessar, 35/2.8 Summaron

When reading the thread title, I figured, "How subjective! The responses will be all over the map." But when I saw the highlighted items, I thought, "This fellow and I think alike" and then when seeing the final lens selection... well I also like my 35mm Summaron and early Summicron (the DR in my case). So perhaps this topic is a bit more reproducible than I thought!

 

[02Pilot]

If my results are boring, I don't blame it on the lenses.

My phrasing was insufficiently precise. A boring photo will indeed always be a boring photo, but an otherwise interesting photo made with a boring lens is disappointing because I know it could have been better.

 

[skucera]

I'm a sucker for variety... a gadgeteer... so I like all effects except the look of obvious ineptitude in lens design. I like the look of new, super-clinical clarity, and the look of vignetting, and the look of low contrast, and the look of a spherical focus plane, and the novelty of having a everything within a vast depth of field in focus at once, and the artistic effects of bokeh, and the inexplicable combination of sharpness and softness from the Thambar, etc.

What I don't like is the obvious crappy look of cheap cameras like Lomo cameras, or cheap kid's cameras with lenses molded from polystyrene, or the gawdawful look from Kodak Disc cameras from the early Eighties, all grain and chromatic aberration.

Scott

 

[dwp]

1. 3D perspective
2. Micro contrast
3. Shadow detail
4. Sharpness or resolution

These four things enough.

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

Character, signature

 

[jamin-b]

I think by microcontrast folks mean acuity or 3D pop. I notice a difference in boring perfect sharpness and lenses that provide a super sharp but somehow special rendering, like Zeiss lenses tend to give at all apertures. ( I don't own any digital era leica lenses so can't comment on them). Sorry if the term isn't liked, but I would have thought it would be more respected than 3D pop. Anyway I definitely know what I am talking about even if it is hard to describe...

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

 

[RichC]

I think by microcontrast folks mean acuity or 3D pop. I notice a difference in boring perfect sharpness and lenses that provide a super sharp but somehow special rendering, like Zeiss lenses tend to give at all apertures. ( I don't own any digital era leica lenses so can't comment on them). Sorry if the term isn't liked, but I would have thought it would be more respected than 3D pop. Anyway I definitely know what I am talking about even if it is hard to describe...

Doesn’t make sense. That’s like using the word “cat” to mean “fruitbat”!

As I mentioned here, a lens can’t have micro-contrast, which describes the contrast of fine detail in a photograph. So, micro-contrast is something that is added after the photo has been taken, either in the darkroom for film or in postproduction for digital.

In short, a lens cannot possibly have micro-contrast because it’s a change to selected parts of a photo, which by definition can be made only by human or computer intelligence - but a lens isn’t intelligent! So, a lens simply has overall contrast of varying degree.

For darkroom prints, micro-contrast can be increased by, say, the use of paper with a certain emulsion. For digital photos, micro-contrast is often adjusted by the “clarity” tool in many programs such as Capture One (using the “structure” slider) and Topaz Clarity - both of these links from the software vendors specifically mention the term “micro-contrast” and its affect on fine detail.

You can’t just use words any old how to mean what you like...!

 

[Stuart John]

Doesn’t make sense. That’s like using the word “cat” to mean “fruitbat”!

As I mentioned here, a lens can’t have micro-contrast, which describes the contrast of fine detail in a photograph. So, micro-contrast is something that is added after the photo has been taken, either in the darkroom for film or in postproduction for digital.

In short, a lens cannot possibly have micro-contrast because it’s a change to selected parts of a photo, which by definition can be made only by human or computer intelligence - but a lens isn’t intelligent! So, a lens simply has overall contrast of varying degree.

For darkroom prints, micro-contrast can be increased by, say, the use of paper with a certain emulsion. For digital photos, micro-contrast is often adjusted by the “clarity” tool in many programs such as Capture One (using the “structure” slider) and Topaz Clarity - both of these links from the software vendors specifically mention the term “micro-contrast” and its affect on fine detail.

You can’t just use words any old how to mean what you like...!

People used to refer to micro contrast as the lenses ability to separate subtle differences in tones, so a lens may have a strong global contrast but will render subtle differences in tones the same color. Another lens may show the subtle differences in tones.

 

[RichC]

People used to refer to micro contrast as the lenses ability to separate subtle differences in tones, so a lens may have a strong global contrast but will render subtle differences in tones the same color. Another lens may show the subtle differences in tones.

Any authoritative online links for this usage? It’s not in any of my optics books. I guess it’s possible for a lens assembly to affect the contrast subtly, which I suppose could be considered a micro-contrast affect. However, the properties of the glass can’t affect micro-contrast.