What lens characteristics are important to you?

[Sumarongi]

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.

Well, merely a couple of centuries ago, the Chinese used to call European shoes *foot coffins* -- according to a German sinologist, IIRC...

 

[Stuart John]

Here was one article I found, I read it sometime ago and may have remembered it a bit wrong. I would seem that the lens should have good contrast and good resolution to render differences in adjacent tone of that are similar.
https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/

 

[jamin-b]

I'm not that precise in my film developing time, temperature or even focus sometimes either!
My understanding of language is that actual usage trumps academic authority in the end. If people want to call "subtle differences in shifts in contrast" microcontrast or awesomeness or the zeissleica effect or whatever, and it catches on, then at some point it becomes "official". Anyway, happy to accept another term for this characteristic, which I think a lot of people do recognize as such. I'm in the photography game (and the photography forum game) for the fun and wonder if it, so can allow myself some liberties!

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

 

[telenous]

No particular characteristic, just predictability in lens behaviour, I guess. Even a technically challenged lens may work for you, if you understand how to minimize or even take pictorial advantage of its shortcomings. There is maybe one thing that really ticks me off. Big distortion in the corners - the kind which elongates heads in the corners with wide angle lenses. Ugh. Begrudgingly, perhaps halfheartedly, and may be somewhat resignedly, I can really live with all other lens flaws.

.

 

[retinax]

...Big distortion in the corners - the kind which elongates heads in the corners with wide angle lenses. Ugh. Begrudgingly, perhaps halfheartedly, and may be somewhat resignedly, I can really live with all other lens flaws.

.

I take it you use fish eyes for general photography then?
Seriously, what you describe is an inherent characteristic of rectilinear wide angles. It can be somewhat mitigated by barrel distortion.

 

[Richard G]

1. Emotion: a dreamy uncoated Elmar, the magical ZM C Sonnar 50 and even just the crisp, poignant Elmarit M 90.
2. Ergonomics: the tiny Summicron 35 version 4=and its focus tab. The Summicron 50 v4, tabbed and with reversible hood. The other C for compact Zeiss, the 21 f4.5.
3. Straight: like the Zeiss 21 mentioned, and the old Elmar.

 

[telenous]

I take it you use fish eyes for general photography then?
...

You are onto something there. My personal photographic hell definitely includes fisheyes

.