lens recommendations

[ph]

Sufficient wisdom and experience summed up until now, so the only addition that might be of use is that, a suitably deep and matte sunshade (and probably avoiding old filters) will improve matters for most lenses.

p.

 

[Nodda Duma]

…Make a "Bad" lens with an aperture in the 1.4 to 2.8 range.?

…

How many lens in the above f/stop range were a crappy lens.?
Thank You

On paper, none. They are all closely related in design form and correction of aberrations, with variations due to performance-external considerations of cost, available glasstypes available at the time, weight requirements, etc.

The biggest differentiator then, from an optical design perspective at least, is consistency of quality across a production run. Is there a wide variation of performance from lens to lens in a production run? Or were the fabrication and assembly tolerances tighter to ensure the worst performer is not far off from the best performer in a run? Tolerances in general would have improved over time as manufacturing quality improved — esp after the mid 1980s when Quality Control became important in manufacturing. This in particular is why you see improvements in quality amongst lenses of that time period or newer even though the prices remained the same.

By now it’s no secret which lenses out there have a better reputation. The performance reputations within the bounds of your question are built upon quality control in manufacturing, rather than differences in the designs themselves. So like the Nikon 50 f/1.8 is a consistent performer, as indicated by the fact most people will agree as such (implying most lenses out there are good performers…ie consistent production quality). On paper, however, it’s one of the more simplistic double gauss designs.

As mentioned I’m speaking to optical quality, which along with ergonomics factors into what is subjectively considered “best”.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Get a good stable tripod.

 

[film_man]

Nobody made a "brand" bad f/2.8 lens but most f/1.4 (or faster) lenses can be debatable, especially when budget is a consideration.

For example, say you want a Nikon 35mm lens. There's the 35/1.4, the 35/2 and the 35/2.8 in countless versions from pre-AI to AFS. Even if you cut it down to manual only, is the 35/1.4 AIS the obvious choice? It is not even that expensive.
Example 2: which Canon EF 50 would you get? The 50/1.8, 50/1.8 II, 50/1.8 STM, 50/1.4 or the 50/1.2L? I had them all. I know the answer (for my tastes).

Etc. Etc.

 

[Craig75]

On paper, none. They are all closely related in design form and correction of aberrations, with variations due to performance-external considerations of cost, available glasstypes available at the time, weight requirements, etc.

The biggest differentiator then, from an optical design perspective at least, is consistency of quality across a production run. Is there a wide variation of performance from lens to lens in a production run? Or were the fabrication and assembly tolerances tighter to ensure the worst performer is not far off from the best performer in a run? Tolerances in general would have improved over time as manufacturing quality improved — esp after the mid 1980s when Quality Control became important in manufacturing. This in particular is why you see improvements in quality amongst lenses of that time period or newer even though the prices remained the same.

By now it’s no secret which lenses out there have a better reputation. The performance reputations within the bounds of your question are built upon quality control in manufacturing, rather than differences in the designs themselves. So like the Nikon 50 f/1.8 is a consistent performer, as indicated by the fact most people will agree as such (implying most lenses out there are good performers…ie consistent production quality). On paper, however, it’s one of the more simplistic double gauss designs.

As mentioned I’m speaking to optical quality, which along with ergonomics factors into what is subjectively considered “best”.

In 21st century you see 50mm lenses with 11 elements , 12 in 10, 13 elements and it looks like ultra wides especially have gone to a whole new level way beyond what was previously possible. Everything you buy now is filled with asph elements too.

Did we break through some barrier in lens design in 21st century?

 

[Nodda Duma]

In 21st century you see 50mm lenses with 11 elements , 12 in 10, 13 elements and it looks like ultra wides especially have gone to a whole new level way beyond what was previously possible. Everything you buy now is filled with asph elements too.

Did we break through some barrier in lens design in 21st century?

Fast 35mm wide angle lenses — 40mm focal length or shorter — are inherently more complex.

The cost barrier for consumer photography lens manufacturing is the barrier that we’ve broken thru, if anything. Chinese manufacturing & glass fab lowering costs, coupled with (very recently) better tools to analyze tolerances and relax them while maintaining better performance are probably the key drivers.

Outside of consumer photography, in industries where cost isn’t an issue, those “new” design aspects have been around for decades, refinements are continuously taking place in those venues to drive down manufacturing costs for things like aspherics (as an example). In a word, progress.

 

[CMoore]

................ I was not talking about JUST a 50mm +/-.



When i see the question asked, it is not just about One Focal Length.
The question that see asked, repeatedly, is..........."Recommend a lens" or "What is a good lens for" ......pick a 35mm camera brand.
I suppose THAT is what i find so confounding.
From 24 to 200 and f/1.4 to f.2.8 ........................ If a person had no lens at all and just simply guessed, are they really going to pick such a bad lens.?


Generally speaking, the price increases as the speed of the lens increases.
Other than that,...... Is it likely that a 105 f/2.8 will be a total dog, but the 105 f/2.0 is going to win you a Nobel Prize.?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Answers to those "recommendation" threads also answer your question: there is no answer that at large can be agreed upon. And I'm not sure why you picked 1.4-2.8 range. A lot of darker & brand lenses are no brainer from quality perspective, especially as you move away from 50 mm FL. Key to correct answer is: lens must be working as per factory specs.

Zooms are somewhat different story though.

Other than that,...... Is it likely that a 105 2.8 going to be a total dog, but the f/2.0 is going to win you a Nobel Prize.?

Quality of photograph is not associated with lens it was taken with (aesthetics, not technicalities).

 

[Craig75]

Fast 35mm wide angle lenses — 40mm focal length or shorter — are inherently more complex.

The cost barrier for consumer photography lens manufacturing is the barrier that we’ve broken thru, if anything. Chinese manufacturing & glass fab lowering costs, coupled with (very recently) better tools to analyze tolerances and relax them while maintaining better performance are probably the key drivers.

Outside of consumer photography, in industries where cost isn’t an issue, those “new” design aspects have been around for decades, refinements are continuously taking place in those venues to drive down manufacturing costs for things like aspherics (as an example). In a word, progress.

I see these Chinese companies- 9mm rectilinear lenses, 15mm shift lenses and all sorts of really crazy lenses. Chinese companies and designers look like they are right at the bleeding edge of consumer photography lens design.

It's easy to forgot or not realise though that photography lenses are very prosaic compared to optics other people need in science and industry but to see all these exotic lens elements end up in modern photography lenses costing a few $100 always amazes me.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Well if you want to get down to it, optics are very labor intensive. When your assemblers work for slave wages, then yes, the resulting optics are going to be very cheap and with poor quality control (consistency of performance from lens to lens).

There’s nothing really cutting edge about that.

................ I was not talking about JUST a 50mm +/-.

When i see the question asked, it is not just about One Focal Length.
The question that see asked, repeatedly, is..........."Recommend a lens" or "What is a good lens for" ......pick a 35mm camera brand.
I suppose THAT is what i find so confounding.
From 24 to 200 and f/1.4 to f.2.8 ........................ If a person had no lens at all and just simply guessed, are they really going to pick such a bad lens.?


Generally speaking, the price increases as the speed of the lens increases.
Other than that,...... Is it likely that a 105 f/2.8 will be a total dog, but the 105 f/2.0 is going to win you a Nobel Prize.?

I’m guessing you’ve shot enough that you already know the answer, but it does make for interesting conversation and will be enlightening for those who don’t.

The answer is the most important part of the camera is the 6” of matter behind the viewfinder. When it comes down to it, a good photographer can make any lens work within the confines of its design parameters. The tools become less important than the craft itself, but a familiar and favored tool is important to the crafter.

 

[Craig75]

Well if you want to get down to it, optics are very labor intensive. When your assemblers work for slave wages, then yes, the resulting optics are going to be very cheap and with poor quality control (consistency of performance from lens to lens).

There’s nothing really cutting edge about that.

I see... nearly all Japanese companies seem to be making their lenses and cameras in Vietnam, Thailand etc.

I'm assuming there isn't any way not to be complicit in this state of affairs unless one is buying made in Japan or made in EU lenses?

So what looks amazing to someone like me who knows nothing about lens design and optics industry but wants a new small fast ultrawide... there is some moral implications there.

I think my choice in euro micro four thirds is cooke cine lenses...

Sorry I've derailed this thread ...

 

[eli griggs]

Canon FD "kit" lenses are very good, from the excellent f1:8 on down and the f3.5 SSC macro.

 

[Henning Serger]

I see these threads, frequently.
Somebody buys an SLR of a brand, or mount, they have not owned previously and they ask for a "Lens Recommendation".
Did..........
Minolta
Nikon
Leica
Olympus
Pentax
Canon ...........
Make a "Bad" lens with an aperture in the 1.4 to 2.8 range.?
I ask this as a complete amateur. .

What are people concerned with................the lens will make color film look bad.....black and white film will have lousy contrast.?
How many lens in the above f/stop range were a crappy lens.?
Thank You

Well, as you are referring to the max. aperture range of 1.4 to 2.8 you are probably referring to the most popular / most used focal length range of about 24mm to 105mm.
No, you won't find a really "bad" lens from the above mentioned main 35mm SLR manufacturers.
But you will find
- good
- very good
- excellent lenses.
Both concerning optics and mechanics.
And all these differences can be very significant and easily visible in the picture, and noticeable in handling and long-term durability (mechanics).

Just an example:
The "nifty-fifty" 50mm standard lens with f1.8 or f2.0.
For my Nikon SLRs and DSLRs I am currently using the following lenses of that group:
- AI-S 1.8/50 (classic long barrel version)
- two AF-D 1.8/50
- two AF-S 1.8/50 G
- Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.
These lenses differ significantly both in optic quality, and in mechanic quality. And in size and price. Each of them has certain strength and weaknesses.
The optical performance differences are often quite obvious, especially in the f1.8 / f2 to f4 range.
The difference in mechanical quality is felt immediately when you start using the lenses.

The "two poles" here are the AF-D 1.8/50 on the one hand, and the Zeiss on the other hand:
The AF-D Nikkor is
- the smallest
- lightest
- most compact
- cheapest
of the above lens list.
But it also has the worst optical and mechanical performance of that group.
On the other hand there is the Zeiss Planar, which offers by far the best optical and mechanical performance of that lens group. And the difference is really visible and significant.
But that is also the most expensive lens, and heavier, too.
You get what you pay for.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[benjiboy]

One thing I can assure you of Chip is that all the major marque lens manufacturers you mention in your post make better lenses than 99% of the users are photographers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One thing I can assure you of Chip is that all the major marque lens manufacturers you mention in your post make better lenses than 99% of the users are photographers.

Painful but true.

 

[CMoore]

One thing I can assure you of Chip is that all the major marque lens manufacturers you mention in your post make better lenses than 99% of the users are photographers.

Painful but true.

Certainly true for me.
I have no interest in all the difference "Specs" of one lens over another.
I am a street photographer.
The topic of the photo itself is WAY MORE important than ANY perceived increase in the quality of rendering due to one lens or another.
I am not doing Fine Art Photography, or some type of Advertising/Commercial/Architectural work.

There would need to be REAL Problems with a lens before it mattered to me.
There is a lot of freedom in that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Certainly true for me.
I have no interest in all the difference "Specs" of one lens over another.
I am a street photographer.
The topic of the photo itself is WAY MORE important than ANY perceived increase in the quality of rendering due to one lens or another.
I am not doing Fine Art Photography, or some type of Advertising/Commercial/Architectural work.

MTF curves may be interesting to look at, but frankly I never found them of much use when I am out taking photographs or in the darkroom.

 

[benjiboy]

All I can tell you is that I have 14 new type of Canon FD bayonet mount lenses with polymer barrels, the majority of which I have had more than twenty-five years, all of which I bought second hand that when they came out people used to scoff at (because they didn't have metal barrels), and many people still do, and I can truthfully say they have all been a delight to use and never given me any problems.

 

[benveniste]

The v1 43-86 was not good.
But the v2 43-86 was just fine. v2 does not have the silver filter ring.

I don't really consider this level of distortion "just fine." First 43mm:

And now 86mm:

As for a "bad" f/2.8 lens, I nominate the Nikon Series E (and original) AF 28mm f/2.8. Both lenses used a dumbed down 5 element/5 group design that was more in line with that offered by low-end 3rd party lens sellers than Nikon's previous manual focus Nikkors.