High end lenses

Just a curious post.

I was spending some time looking at the DXO website. Zeiss and Sigma A series lead the pack. I obviously rather have less quality gear and be out shooting more often than the reverse. Zeiss are also manual focus only which for some people are less desirable. Then I thought you can get these lenses for a 35mm film or a digital camera but then again one could also shoot medium format and if a cheaper lens on a medium format would more then outperform it ....

Like to hear your thoughts.

I am very happy with my manual focus Zeiss lenses.

Sigma is good, but there is one name that continually stands out. For serious professional users of Zeiss lenses, manual focus is absolutely desirable, not less desirable. The precise feel afforded by manual focus is part of the appeal of Zeiss (although hobbyists would only care to be seen with the latest technology and autofocus over anything else), and also for many analogue medium format users using their own non-Zeiss high-end lenses.

Zeiss is made by Sony under licence in a joint design/manufacturer partnership (since 1995), and is a big and favoured marque for the recently released Sony mirrorless cameras. The one thing that bugs me is the somewhat ugly appearance of the lenses (by no means an indicator of performance!), but then every marque has a trademark look about it...

Yes, mainstream photography many would need autofocus right - weddings, events, sports, journalism.

rayonline_nz said:

Yes, mainstream photography many would need autofocus right - weddings, events, sports, journalism.

Click to expand...

Probably, but not universally. Manual-focus Zeiss lenses do have their niche and can be found across the spectrum with no restriction to any one genre. They are certainly very popular in the landscape genre, especially the ultrawide designs.

For normal amateur photography there is no need for top tier lenses. When I say top tier I mean the new Zeiss, Leica, Canon L series and whatever Nikon calls their top tier. Unless you are doing HUGE blowups or need to reproduce art or some other object with 100% colour fidelity, tier two lenses will suffice. It's widely known that the larger the format the less optically critical the lenses are for the most part.

When I was shooting professionally I used the best I could afford. Mainly because they were built better and would not fail in the field. Back in the olden days double truck ads were common in magazines and life sized promo photos of executives were made for trade shows. In those instances you needed good, sharp contrasty lenses. Irrespective of film format. Magazines don't care about image quality anymore and will use cellphone images if they can grab one off flickr for free. Trade shows don't have the budgets they use too so again they will settle for less quality. Not to mention all the "now I got a 5D so I'm a professional photographer" types who have no clue what they are doing and charge 25% of what should be charged so they can stroke their ego.

DXO is a wonderful site for nerds and gear heads who love to endlessly debate all the latest test data. Most of which has little relationship to real world application or something you can actually "see". Reminds me of the cesspool DPReview has become.

So getting back to your OP, if AF is important to you then purchase what you can easily afford. Don't make a financial stretch for the latest and according to DXO greatest piece of gear. Unless it can pay for itself in a business setting. But then again if price isn't a consideration, fill your boots as they say.

For me the "look" a lens gives me is way more important than MTF charts etc. Generally speaking you can't find a lens that blows your mind pictorially by looking at measured stats. In the past Sigma lenses were total crap mechanically speaking and not much better optically. I know they are trying to redeem themselves but I wouldn't touch one for at least five years so see how they are standing up to steady use. Image quality wise the photos I have seen made with them are too "clinical/technical" for my liking. They have no personality. Zeiss has a specific look that I like on my Blad, but then again I prefer the older lenses over the newer ones.

In the motion picture field DP's will go to great lengths to find a lens that renders a scene the way they want it. They would rather get 90% of what they want in camera than just rely on digital editing. I use the same rational for my film photography. Sure I can do wondrous things in PS but if I want to do a wet print, which I still do, I want the "look" to be part of the negative.

I guess I've rambled a bit. I hope you find something of value.

I have owned many, many lenses made from 1845 to 2016, from many manufacturers spanning the entire history of photography. The Sigma 35mm & 50mm f1.4 ART lenses are the sharpest I've ever owned. My strategy for lenses has been to own only a few, but make them the very best available. DxO rates the Sigma 85mm f1.4A on a Nikon D800E as the sharpest combo they've tested to date. I own more manual focus lenses than AF (I collect lenses so most are for large format,) but for use on DSLR I only buy AF lenses. They are so much faster in use.


Kent in SD

Center sharpness is one of the first things we learn about in camera craft, and also one of the first we need to relegate to second or third importance. There are so many other more important qualities to a picture, to name a few, framing, background, light quality, selective focus, tone shapes, textures...............

Maintaining center performance into the corners often sorts out "the men" from "the boys" so far as lens quality is concerned, especially wide open, for some people this may be one of the prime reasons for choosing a more expensive optic. Build quality and robustness is probably another.

I would choose a Zeiss lens any day of the week. Their glass is far more superior and the build quality could only be surpassed by a Leica lens. Also, there is the Zeiss pop effect that you get from good quality glass, that you simply don't get from the Sigma. Don't get me wrong, if you are just looking for sharpness from your images, sure Sigma makes sharp Art lenses. But the image is flat and the colour is not that impressive imho.

Voightlander also makes fantastic lenses. They are cheaper than Zeiss but the quality is very very good.

If you are shooting sports or wildlife, the autofocus is a massive help, so I would choose the Canon L series instead. I have 100-400L mk2 and it is an awesome lens for that. For everything else is definitely Zeiss or Voightlander or Leica if you can afford it.

Eric Rose said:

For me the "look" a lens gives me is way more important than MTF charts etc. Generally speaking you can't find a lens that blows your mind pictorially by looking at measured stats. In the past Sigma lenses were total crap mechanically speaking and not much better optically. I know they are trying to redeem themselves but I wouldn't touch one for at least five years so see how they are standing up to steady use. Image quality wise the photos I have seen made with them are too "clinical/technical" for my liking. They have no personality. Zeiss has a specific look that I like on my Blad, but then again I prefer the older lenses over the newer ones.

Click to expand...

I agree. I once read that the modern lens designs (Sigma Art being the prime example) which have a ton of elements can be very sharp but the images have a flat quality, lacking depth. The speculation was that they sacrifice depth and character in order to beat the "tests" which many consumers use to make purchases, because these qualities don't show up on the tests. I had a Sigma lens for my canon at the time, and once I saw this, I could not unsee it. Now, when I buy any lens or fixed lens camera, whether it be a point and shoot or Super Ikonta, I go on flickr and search for images taken with it, and look at the intangible character of the lens that doesn't show up on a test chart. I have since bought a few Zeiss lenses, they are great! As are many lenses from many manufacturers, going all the way back a century. "How do the pictures make you feel?"

I have tested (and owned) many nikkor lenses - and old micro nikkor 55mm f3.5, and 105mm f2.5 Ai are so super sharp - that neither "top" newer lenses that I have tested did not perform better. Equally yes - but better no.
More less I agree with everything here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

Maybe once I will be able to get hands on some ultra micro nikkor - and put a roll or two of CMS 20 for a test .

By a “high end” lens what is meant is an expensive lens. An expensive lens is expensive because of better materials used for glass and mechanical components and especially the expense of lens assembly for highest uniform quality for all of a particular production. For example, years ago a friend who worked at Leitz in Germany told me that a large part of expense for Leica binoculars manufacture was the precise matching of both telescopes to make a pair. For this reason I could sit in balcony at the Metropolitan Opera with my eyes glued to my binoculars for a performance of Gotterdamerung with no eye strain at all. There is no free lunch. However, probably Nikon, Minolta, Canon, rationalized the process to achieve excellent results more economically.

rayonline_nz said:

Yes, mainstream photography many would need autofocus right - weddings, events, sports, journalism.

Click to expand...

Competent photographers were taking great iconic photographs of all these disciplines before autofocus was ever invented so it's not absolutely essential.

I wouldn't worry too much about brand names. In my experience, I've got a few Zeiss lenses that aren't as sharp as some other lenses from other, much cheaper manufacturers. It often depends on the design and the individual lens itself. Beyond that, I try not to worry about sharpness too much. Of course it matters, but rather than limit myself to only using the sharpest lenses available, I try to get to know each lenses characteristics, and use them in situations where they will perform the best. Sometimes a soft lens, or a lens with a sharp center and soft corners will give me a better look than an overall sharp lens. They're tools. If you use the right tool for the job, it makes things easier. Scroll saws are great, but sometimes a coping saw will do a better job, even though it's much cheaper and generally harder to use.

First of all DXO is technical site, not a photography site. And I'm not a gearhead. Personally, I avoid Sigma lenses like a plague for focus issues they can't resolve for decade. It is better to have manual focus like Ziess SLR lens, than crappy AF like Sigma have. IMO.

High End is Leica, Leitz lenses to me for RF cameras. It has nothing to do with the brand name, but strictly what those lenses gives on pictures. Old Leitz lenses works on digital Leica cameras better than many new non-Leica lenses and Leica modern lenses are great on film cameras. I mean, on pictures. I'm not talking about $4000+ APO lenses, I have as low as $150 old and maximum 1200$ NiB modern and LN not so old Leitz, Leica made ones.

For example, $1200 NiB Leica made lens on darkroom print:

and same lens on digital Leica:

In AF world Canon L lenses are giving luxury on pictures and precise, fast AF. And modern Cosina made Zeiss in ZE mount. It is manual focus, but they are extremely well made and aperture is working like in normal Canon lens

Mozg31337 said:

I would choose a Zeiss lens any day of the week. Their glass is far more superior and the build quality could only be surpassed by a Leica lens. Also, there is the Zeiss pop effect that you get from good quality glass, that you simply don't get from the Sigma. Don't get me wrong, if you are just looking for sharpness from your images, sure Sigma makes sharp Art lenses. But the image is flat and the colour is not that impressive imho.

Voightlander also makes fantastic lenses. They are cheaper than Zeiss but the quality is very very good.

If you are shooting sports or wildlife, the autofocus is a massive help, so I would choose the Canon L series instead. I have 100-400L mk2 and it is an awesome lens for that. For everything else is definitely Zeiss or Voightlander or Leica if you can afford it.

Click to expand...

Most camera manufacturers' lens are great and most off brands are quite good and indistinguishable from the camera manufacturers except Sigma. That said, now that I have many Hasselblad lenses which are made by Zeiss anything else is disappointing. Part of the reason I like Hasselblad so much.

jim10219 said:

I wouldn't worry too much about brand names. In my experience, I've got a few Zeiss lenses that aren't as sharp as some other lenses from other, much cheaper manufacturers. It often depends on the design and the individual lens itself. Beyond that, I try not to worry about sharpness too much. Of course it matters, but rather than limit myself to only using the sharpest lenses available, I try to get to know each lenses characteristics, and use them in situations where they will perform the best. Sometimes a soft lens, or a lens with a sharp center and soft corners will give me a better look than an overall sharp lens. They're tools. If you use the right tool for the job, it makes things easier. Scroll saws are great, but sometimes a coping saw will do a better job, even though it's much cheaper and generally harder to use.

Click to expand...

I am just a Beginner Photographer, but......i have a Long History with Guns and Guitar Amps.
What have i learned.?....all the specs, prices, testimonies.....i do not believe "Anything" anybody says about a product until they can pick it out of a blind test, Ten Times out of Ten.
Be it powder, brass...strings, speakers, tubes...or lens, paper and developers.
The ability for people to recall with their Visual or Auditory memory is horrible.
What some guy SAYS he can see or hear is almost meaningless.....unless he can repeat it at random from samples that are unknown to him.
I have seen Thousands upon Thousands of awesome pictures that were taken with Ceil Phones and "Entry" level cameras with a kit-lens.
No piece of paper, and no bad guy ever cared what powder or bullet they got punched with.
No audience ever cares what strings or speakers a guitar player used on stage.
Nobody in a gallery ever cares what brand lens or camera a photo was taken with.
Not saying this discussion has no place or no merit.....just saying sharpness and quality of glass are the photo equivalent of Strings/Speakers/Tubes in the Guitar World.

CMoore said:

I am just a Beginner Photographer, but......i have a Long History with Guns and Guitar Amps.
What have i learned.?....all the specs, prices, testimonies.....i do not believe "Anything" anybody says about a product until they can pick it out of a blind test, Ten Times out of Ten.
Be it powder, brass...strings, speakers, tubes...or lens, paper and developers.
The ability for people to recall with their Visual or Auditory memory is horrible.
What some guy SAYS he can see or hear is almost meaningless.....unless he can repeat it at random from samples that are unknown to him.
I have seen Thousands upon Thousands of awesome pictures that were taken with Ceil Phones and "Entry" level cameras with a kit-lens.
No piece of paper, and no bad guy ever cared what powder or bullet they got punched with.
No audience ever cares what strings or speakers a guitar player used on stage.
Nobody in a gallery ever cares what brand lens or camera a photo was taken with.
Not saying this discussion has no place or no merit.....just saying sharpness and quality of glass are the photo equivalent of Strings/Speakers/Tubes in the Guitar World.

Click to expand...

Then look through an slr with a Zeiss lens and you will see the difference.

I do own a few (very few) top lenses but the three I enjoy working with the most are my 1935 Elmar 50/3.5, my 1956 Solinar 75/3.5 and my 1963 Super Takumar 55/1.8. Why? Because thy reliably give me photographs I really enjoy looking at. And they work every time.

I am relatively sure they are not considered top tier.

Sirius Glass said:

Then look through an slr with a Zeiss lens and you will see the difference.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about Looking through a lens, or what it looks like when it is printed.?
I really do not care to compare lens when on the camera. I can see fine through any lens when it is on the body.

I take an entirely different view, far removed from parochial preferences of equipment.
How well the photographer understands the conceptual, visual and aesthetic interpolation of the scene and carries it through to the camera is far, far more important than what type, format of camera or the lens, including, but not exclusive to, Hasselblad. This implies years of training and experience — something today's snappers just do not have, couldn't be bothered with or have no intention of doing, because equipment over skill matters more.

What good is a fancy camera system if you have no training, no proven experience, no peer reviewing of your work, no critical appraisal of your technical grasp of the photographed scene? Are they ready for the take-down? No! In my experience, amateurs with Hasselblads particularly have absolutely no visual / emotive connectivity with the scene and simply create a dog's breakfast of whatever they see, and still years later have not moved on, yet consider themselves achievers. The real achievers don't preference equipment over the skill that is so much more important to creating a photograph. Zeiss? Pffft. Anything can be used for a photograph, with knowledge and skill and passion. There is just so much missing among the cashed up digital photographers relying too much on technology (the camera) to do everything for them and then pat themselves on the back with the credit! In analogue, baying for the most expensive lens there is based on heresy is folly. You must have demontratable skill make the photograph — all a lens does is bring the the scene to the camera!

In essence, a fancy marque camera and Z lens does not make you a photographer or put you above the pack, especially if there are guys out there creating images with pinhole cameras selling images for thousands, and wouldn't spare a sideways glance to a boxy Hasselblad with a Zeiss lens on it.

Time to catch a Black Cab up Real Street, boys, and consider, truthfully, what really matters in creating a photograph.

Good equipment matters, having a good eye, sense of composition will not replace having good gear, but shooting a war zone with a pin hole camera is not going to work.

Although I'm not sure what other mean by a high end lens and others have already commented my take is:
1. High build quality, designed and priced to be used on a daily bases, new full frame AF lens from Nikon, Canon, Pentax are weathered sealed.
2. Highest possible resolution, in today world that means 200 L/PMM of Tmax 100, having greater resolving power is more important when shooting a large high end sensor.
3. Fast glass for the lens type.
4. Minimum distortion, in the corners, at all F stops, if zoom up and down the zoom range.
5. Best coatings, low flare, good color retention.

I had Nikon MF, Leica and Canon screw mount. Currently have Sigma, Minolta A mount, Pentax M42 and K, in their day were state of the art, as I shoot 90% black and white, as good as any new lens. In terms of producing quality images kit lens, Nikon E and Konica budget lens along with Miranda, Petri, and Kowa all perform as well my high end lens. May not be as sharp wide open, build quality is not as good, for casual use just as good.

CMoore said:

Are we talking about Looking through a lens, or what it looks like when it is printed.?
I really do not care to compare lens when on the camera. I can see fine through any lens when it is on the body.

Click to expand...

What looks good to you includes optical aberrations, softened corners, and distortion. Since you have not been trained to see and recognize those problems any lens will look good to you.

While the MTF curve will not tell everything about a lens, it can highlight advantages on lens has or defects another lens has.

My camera bag tends to hold what most would consider high end gear but none of that helps to create relationships with people or pick the moments that matter in an image.

Shooting people, I do however have strong attachments to certain lenses because of the way they render but this comes from their imperfections rather than any kind of clnical clarity. Of course this is just my approach and works for some types of photography but is not very useful for many styles of photography where optical perfection is preferable.

Good manual focus lenses are not expensive. Take for example the industar-61. You may have to try a few copies, but for the price you can get pictures that would be very hard to tell apart from leica glass. Same with Pentacon-6 glass, or anything from the former USSR. The Pancolar is one of my favourite lenses, has a unique rendering of colours. And don't even get me started on the glut of wonderful Japanese glass. Good lenses are cheap and you need only a few focal lengths. The most important thing is that they are prime lenses. Zooms can be sharp, but owing to the large number of elements needed to make them work, will always lack the character and 3d rendering of a good prime.

Stopped down a little, most of it will outresolve the film, or come close to the limits of what is detectable.

Being able to manually stop down and focus is another part of experience. To each his own, but I see no reason to plop down hundreds of dollars for some 20 element sigma monstrousity