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

[CK Dexter Haven]

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

Just out of interest. Thanks!

I can like a lens with high contrast, or low. I rarely care about 'color rendition' because that's almost always going to be affected by the film, or manipulated in the computer. Most lenses are sharp enough.

Bokeh is the one factor that will immediately disqualify a lens. It's the only thing i can't (realistically) fix or change after the exposure.

 

[anjoca76]

Well, since I just bought a Skopar 35/2.5 Classic today, I can say that I bought it for: its price, its focal length, its size, its sharpness, its color rendering, and its reputation. For not much more money I could have gotten the pancake M version new instead, but I really like the focus tab on my Skopar 21/4, so it seems that that is also something I look for in a lens with all else being equal.

All that said, I can think of other lenses I have that meet almost none of those characteristics that I still love anyway. My old Elmar 90/4 comes to mind. It's a little big for my tastes (even though it's small for a telephoto), no focusing tab, isn't sharp wide open (or even stopped all the way down, for that matter), and it could use a CLA as the barrel is stiff and it can be difficult to focus. It has dust and cleaning marks. The lens cap always falls off. Yet it makes wonderful images, especially portraits, and for what I paid for it--$75--it is an absolute steal, considering the use I've gotten out of it.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I lied: when buying, I value money the most.

 

[zuiko85]

What! Why no selection for 'affordable'?

Of course, that term could have many different meanings to different folks.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What! Why no selection for 'affordable'?

Of course, that term could have many different meanings to different folks.

Post 8: "Availability, affordability, handling, 'look' -- none of the things on your list!"

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Focal length, and that is is a prime lens (I don't use zooms), sharpness and contrast, control of aberrations are secondary but sometimes a decider.
Also I don't own any AF lenses tend to use AI Nikons on my digital SLR so they normally have to be AI.

 

[daveleo]

I can't list them in any order, but the filters I use for buying (DSLR) lenses
are: very pleasant image rendering, nice handling to manual focus, small size, prime lens.
Every time I have let a lens slip by this set of filters, I sold it off pretty quickly.

The last lens I would spend money on is a large zoom, no matter how highly rated it is.

 

[redisburning]

these days I have little interest in lenses that are not super sharp as the CZ lenses are priced so reasonably IMO.

 

[michaelwj]

Handling

Handling

Handling,
handling,
handling. (In that order)
If I don't like the feel of it, it won't get used.
If its too big/small/heavy, it won't get used.
If I can't focus it how I like to, or the focus tab or aperture ring doesn't feel right, the it won't get used.

Realistically, I don't know who we're kidding. Everything relatively new is optically good enough, so it all comes down to how it handles.

After handling (3 times) it would come down to the in/out of focus transition rendering. But usually I just go with what fells right.

But none of this is on the list.... I'll take another look and pick one.

 

[Cyriljay]

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.

My shooting technique is as above

I agree with the above and I have voted for Sharpness but I like the aperture to be a considerable point. I use Leica and Hasselblad gear and my main factor is contrast and sharpness in my photography.😀😀

 

[mdarnton]

Of the types of things listed, I put ergonomics pretty high. For instance, I generally won't buy lenses that are outrageously heavy and large representatives in their focal length unless they offer something I really want. Fitting in a fanny pack is a big plus for me. For instance I bought a Sigma 10-20mm zoom to get the 15mm effective W/A, but I NEVER carry the lens around, and now that I'm back to Leica I'd much prefer to have the Voigtlander 15mm.

Also, I prefer focus tabs, if I have a choice.

 

[taskoni]

I choose focal length I don't already have and making sure it's Leica. Then I know it will do.

Regards,

Boris

 

[giellaleafapmu]

For me it is mostly the flare, then built quality and in a certain measure bokeh. In real work I shot most of the time against the light. Products, food, architecture either with a light in front or with the light of windows in the image, in my everyday stupid pictures I also like to shot against the light, probably as a result of aesthetic I developed in the serious work, so I like the lens to be flare resistant. I don't shot very open (no, not even food) so maximum aperture is not a factor and once you close down a bit almost any lens is sharp. The built quality is part of most decent lenses but I really didn't like some Nikon series from the '80s with too much plastic and rings with too much play so I still have a look at the lens built even tough, against popular believe, I must admit that in recent years not even cheap kit zooms have failed on this respect. Bokeh is kind of secondary but there are lenses with a really ugly bokeh which I traded for different models. Of course, price is part of the equation but with the other comment done it should be clear that I don't lust really expensive lenses since I don't use really fast, really wide, really long lenses which are those which tend to be the most expensive.

GLF

 

[kossi008]

You should have added an option 'all of the above', really. 😀

 

[cosmonaut]

Most of what I do is landscape so flaring is first, sharpness second. Most all modern lenses are sharp but even some high end ones can flare like crazy.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Sharpness at Maximum Aperture.

 

[Dez]

You left off the most significant factor, and I was dismayed that none of the people posting in this string seem to have mentioned it: value for the price. One can easily pay fifty times more for the latest optical tour de force from Leitz than for a similar Jupiter. Whether this is a good idea or not will depend on the particular photography being practiced. If it is handheld "available darkness" shooting, it is doubtful that the additional cost will be reflected in the final print.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[thejameskendall]

weight, then size, then aperture range, then out of focus rendering, then centre sharpness. and whether i can afford it.