I'm really concerned with the over all package. I'm usually looking at the cheaper end of the scale and usually used equipment. I like lenses to be in good condition at least the glass. Sharpness is important but most lenses are usually sharp enough at F4 or F5.6. I really like my little 50mm Elmar f3.5. It seems to produce pleasing images. My early Nikon 105 f2.5 P is real nice to.
Ergonomics before all else.
I have a lovely Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM that has beautiful rendition, character, and sharpness but its long focus through, finicky aperture ring, and infinity stop make it a bit annoying to use. Might switch to a planar.
I marked sharpness.... but, flare control (via Lens Coatings), which effects contrast at wider f/stops is also a big thing I look for.
Yes, I use Lens hoods, but a good coating + hood is the best combo...
Sharpens must be good, not... almost sharp. Edge sharpness sometimes...I don't mind a little fall off.
None of the above. I assume most of them, and don't so highly value the others, like maximum aperture.
1. Handling, for the lenses I will use a lot.
2. Size, for the lenses I will use a lot.
3. Character, but only for focal lengths 21 to 90.
The last four lenses I bought were max aperture 4.5, 4, 2.8, 2.8. And the 4.5 was before I bought the M9. The look of my little Elmar M 50 at 2.8 is nicer than my Summicron wide open I think.
Jeez. about 3 or 4 of these traits are equivalent "priority". The others are important too, but maximum aperture is only a factor for those lenses and situations where its a factor🙂 Sharpness center to corner is a combined trait I like to consider. Flare is an awful and hard to pin down because of the lens under consideration -- modern designs or hoods, we know what we gotta do for a given lens.
Now bokeh, yeah I consider that. Not as much as some folks though. I can't afford some of the lenses with both sharpness and bokeh that I would love to achieve.
I bet I'm not alone...
(I voted for corner sharpness because it incorporates both center and corner sharpness by default)
It would vary greatly in relation to the intended subject. For example, an ultra sharp, slower lens I'd buy for landscapes or architecture wouldn't necessarily be my first choice for portraits.
But in almost every case I'd have to rank rendering or drawing ability appropriate for the subject at the top of the list.
Although I like sharp lenses as much as anyone, it's interesting to consider that most of the great historical paintings are not as sharp as even the poorest lenses many of us have in our kit, yet the rendering qualities of great paintings (the way tones, colors, hues, shades and light are handled) usually make up for any lack of photograph-like super fine detail.
- Ergonomics/handling
- Size (I never shoot faster than f/3.5 anyway really)
- Rendering
- Sharpness (to a very small extent. Don't care much about this)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.