When buying a lens, what do you value the most?

[jagwar.jim]

Many things to think about when buying lenses. But which one is the most important to you?

Just out of interest. Thanks!

 

[ruby.monkey]

Focal length/field of view. That's what will have the greatest influence on my photos.

After that, how the lens draws (both in- and out-of-focus).

 

[jagwar.jim]

Focal length/field of view. That's what will have the greatest influence on my photos.

After that, how the lens draws (both in- and out-of-focus).

About focal length, I took that as already being decided. When looking for a 35mm lens for example, there are many, and all are slightly different. From there, what is the most important.

 

[Jockos]

Focus shift and mfd maybe, nice most lenses are sharp enough.....

 

[pvdhaar]

Unfortunately, aspects like handling or build aren't options here. No matter how great the optical properties of a lens, if its handling is awkward, it's a lens that'll rarely be used.. a focus ring that turns the other way than you're used to, a filter size that's at odds with your other lenses, these are just a couple of other things that go into the mix when choosing a lens.

 

[bjornkeizers]

When comparing certain lenses, the overall quality is of course my main concern. All things being otherwise similar or equal, maximum aperture would probably be the deciding factor. Namely because I simply don't use flash (Yes, I'm a wacko) so a bigger aperture means getting more things done with lower light levels.

 

[peterm1]

Sharpness has to be my first concern. A lens that is not sharp is as good as useless mostly. Just HOW sharp is the question. I guess sharp enough is the answer. Next will often by maximum aperture. I don't think faster is always better so this is not in the the same league as sharpness issue. There is more latitude her but again the answer is "fast enough". Some things don't bother me much particularly if they can be fixed quite easily in post processing. Vignetting. Not a problem. Color fringing can be more of a problem but as its often found in faster lenses that's a trade off. And some factors depend mostly on how the lens will be used. If I am thinking a lens will be used for portraits, edge sharpness is not an issue and neither is vignetting but bokeh definitely is. But I really think that adequate sharpness is my number one issue in most lenses as it simply cannot be fudged. No amount of post processing helps. And if it is not sharp enough (whether its because of focus shift or something else) then I will never be satisfied with the lens. The ironic thing is that often I will post process in a way that reduces sharpness (selectively) and same for vignetting, etc.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Availability, affordability, handling, 'look' -- none of the things on your list!

Edit: and size and weight, as others have said.

Cheers,

R.

 

[matt_mcg2]

More or less Roger's list. I don't have huge amounts of money to spend on camera equipment, so what I look for is a lens I can afford, and that I can find. 'Look' trumps handling most of the time, although I got rid of a Summitar which I otherwise liked because the handling (non standard F-stops, odd filters, etc) irritated me.*

Sharpness in the centre matters much more than sharpness in the corners (which I couldn't really care less about), but most reputable prime lenses that aren't faulty are more than sharp enough for me, so it's not really an issue. The 70+ year old Summar is easily sharp enough except at f2. I don't use zooms (on SLRs) because most of the zoom lenses I can afford aren't sharp enough, and because I'm not keen on the handling of zoom lenses.

Nice bokeh is a plus, but, again, few lenses I've owned have had really objectionable bokeh, so I'm quite easily satisfied.

* Ironically, I now use a Summar as my main RF lens, which has the same F-stop sequence.

 

[thegman]

For me, it just needs to be halfway decent really. I generally prefer to shoot stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, where just about any lens will be very much acceptable I think.

I used to be into the very fast lenses, but I realised that I don't like shallow DOF that much, and I'm better off with a nice, small, slow lens.

 

[maitani]

! character

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Good glass.

Phil Forrest

 

[Spicy]

Also size, weight, and price/performance ratio. And if you're talking "new" lens and not "new-to-me" lens, then how likely the lens is to retain it's value -- which is why I very rarely buy brand-new lenses.

 

[jsrockit]

Unfortunately, aspects like handling or build aren't options here. No matter how great the optical properties of a lens, if its handling is awkward, it's a lens that'll rarely be used.. .

I agree...

 

[Godfrey]

Handling, build, consistency, rendering qualities, sharpness, etc.

I have tons of money to throw at photographic equipment, but that doesn't always mean the most expensive piece of equipment is always the best thing for my photographs.

G

 

[Monochrom]

1-Sharpness
2-Flare resistance (don´t lik hoods)
3-Field distortion

 

[kxl]

PRICE.

The BEST lens, if outside of my price range, is not a lens that I would own.

 

[MIkhail]

Sharpness has to be my first concern. A lens that is not sharp is as good as useless mostly. Just HOW sharp is the question. I guess sharp enough is the answer.

Never used a lens that was not sharp enough for me.

P.S.
In fact, most of them are too sharp for me. I had a little Nokton 35/1.4 some time ago, and sold it in favor of Zeiss Biogon 35.
Regretted immediately- little Nokton had wonderfull smoothness to it, where is Biogon is simply crazy un-naturally sharp.

 

[louisb]

Getting it second hand so I can minimise my loss in case I don't like it!

LouisB

 

[jimcon11]

Lens signature, character, whatever you want to call it. The summar and sonnar lenses are my favorite for 35mm.