lens question to end all lens questions

well I'm not a professional, currently I'm not using a DSLR but I owned a analog EOS and sometimes I really feel a littel bit amused about whats written here.
I dont know if all of you are professionals and if all of you can buy themself a 2500-10000 $ lens!
Ok, maybe SIGMA or TAMRON are not as good as some Canon Lenses, but I know that SIGMA and TAMRON got a lot of prices for there lenses.

for example: TAMRON's AF 28-300 F/3,5-6,3 Aspherical
IF Macro owned these prices:

EISA (European Imaging and sound Organisation) Award 2000
american photo - editors choice
foto magazin (german) "sehr gut" (means best)
TIPA (Technical Image Press Association) "best lens" 2000

so is that nothing? for me it depends on the price! I cant buy a lens for 2500$ And for my point of few its enough for me. and all these prices cant be that wrong?

but, if you think you really need a lens from with that price, than take it! its your choice, but I think, its not the equipment wich makes a good photo, its the person behind!

Peter

longwatcher wrote:
I only need $56,000 + the 1200mm to complete my collection

Just for a fun comparison, I recently received a catalog and price list for a Swiss watch company and prices listed range from $4000 to $285,000. But if you can't afford the $285,000 watch, they'll sell you a book abut the watch for only $185. Now an entire Canon lens collection feels dirt cheap. It's all about perspective

Oops - I just noticed that the fanciest watches in the catalog are listed as "on request". I guess that means "even worse"

Without more information I would consider that nothing. ie I would start by assuming that any 28-300 lens is fairly poor, and a long list of awards could mean no more than the lens is not quite as bad as you would expect. I'd want to see some real data to be sure.

Similarly when F1.0 lenses were quite new about 10-20 years ago - they got all sorts of great press - but they still underperformed slower lenses by a very large margin. They were a technical feat but that didn't mean you necessarily wanted to take a picture through one if you didn't need to.

Well this thread is not going exactly in the direction I envisioned so maybe this will clear things up....

I take these following statments to be givens....

yes they only test one lens.
yes qualtity control is an issue.
Yes every company in capable of making a few lemons here and there.
No this thread is not about swiss watches.
no primes and zooms should not be expected to perform equally well.
Yes I agree that not all canon glass is perfect, I know canon makes some budget glass that sucks, usually they ship them stuck to the front of a Rebel.
No, Really, It's not about watches.
Yes I am aware that not everyone can afford "L" glass. I know I can't most of the time.
Yes there are size and weight considerations.

I am not trying to be a glass snob at all, the Point I trying to get to is that your images are only as good as the glass you shoot them through. Regardless of brand name or price, the lens with better optic resolution should be the better lens. Price, Brand and weight should be secondary.

am I wrong here?

If you're thinking that everyone will agree on your method of choosing/rating a lens, or the exact flow of a forum thread, then yes, you are wrong. The world is just not that simple.

So what you are saying is that, in a controlled situation if lens A gets a rating 3.9 and lens B gets a rating of 3 then lens A is better.
Is that is not an acceptable way of picking the better lens? Really?

How else are you supposed to test them other than optically, in side by side repeatable tests?

The ability for a lens to resolve objects is it's only job, what other criteria would you have me use? Price is not a factor that determines optical quality, paying more for an inferior lens won't make it resolve better. Having a personal affinity for a certian brand doesn't make it better glass. Being unable to afford a lens doesn't lessen it's quality. these things are all far more subjective than optical resolution.

Or am I wrong again?

I had hoped that this topic had been done to death by now in the 'Lens Help' thread.

However it seems not and some people obviously do not read earlier threads and posts; or are intent on riding their own little hobby horse - My lenses are as good as yours, even if I only paid for them in ring pulls....

I will say again, "If you are happy with the results you get from your equipment, fine. If owning , or not owning a particular lens or makers lens makes you happy, fine".

But for those of us who have to make or equipment work for us and our clients THEN it really is a no brainer - we have to use as good as we can, and with Canon bodies that means using Canon lenses!

Would you buy a Ferrari and then put a Ford engine into it?

As I posted in he other topic:

So can we stop the pointless going round in circles and agree that:

1/ Camera manufacturers lenses are likely to be better than third party ones
2/ Buy the best you can afford
3/ Less often does mean more – restrict your number of lenses, but buy better ones.
4/ Prime lenses will still beat zooms – the more you pay the less the difference though
5/ Learn to properly use what you have before “needing� something else
6/ Go out and take lots of photographs – see 5/
7/ Enjoy yourselves

Of course, there are optical factors other than resolution (such as flare and distortion) to consider; which I assume you are including in your assessment process.

However, even if one lens is optically superior to another I still might prefer the lens that is optically inferior. The reason is that most of my photography is done while walking and I simply can't carry a tripod and a lot of heavy glass around. A picture taken with a lens that is slightly inferior optically is better than the picture i miss because I don't have that heavy lens with me.

Also, I value depth of field and want to use small fstops handheld when possible and IS will allow me to use smaller fstops. So I might pick an IS lens of slightly less optical quality over a non-IS lens.

Bottom line, I agree that if you assume you will have the lens with you when you need it and that you will have a tripod and price is not a consideration then optical quality should determine which lens you buy. Of course, build quality is important too.

Frank B

You may use whatever criteria you like: center sharpness, edge sharpness, wide open, mid-range, flare, distortion, contrast, color, speed, minimum focusing distance, focal length, weight, price, robust build, feel, and so on. However, I thought you were suggesting that there was an answer to a debate as old as photography itself. I've been watching this kicked back and forth for 30 years now and that's because I'm only 40

Ha, what a hopeless endeavour. The length of this thread alone proves you wrong. Sorry to say so. There are no objective criteria that we can all agree and act upon in the purchase of lenses. However we can evaluate the pros and cons of different parameters with regards to different usages. And we can discuss the matters with fellow enthusiast and exchange experiences to achieve a better foundation for our individual choices. That’s why I’m here.

Hope you don't mind me saying Paul but that's a bit judgemental. I read most threads on this forum. Even the ones I don't understand. It's been of invaluable help. Not all threads answer all questions all of the time. Also, there are people new to the forum or those that dip in now and again that might not read all threads but hey, you didn't have to look at this one. The subject was pretty clearly stated.

Anyway, your summary was neat.

Oh, and where can I get lenses for ring-pulls?

Martin

Well,
a lens is a tool.
You can rarely judge the quality of a tool by itself.
You must consider the use you will put the tool to.
So, lens criteria may be more or less important to different users.

martcol

I know that it was judgemental - that was the idea.

At some point you have to make a judgement about things - do I buy this, can I spend that, do I have to rob a bank to afford more L lenses............

I come from the standpoint that we have to aim for the best - not always possible, but at least aim for it.
L lenses are the best that Canon can make for their SLR bodies and even they can improve them as time and experience add to their knowledge; therefore I aspire to using the best I can for a particular task.

If money is no object then everything is much simpler - I readily concede that - and some people cannot afford a bagful of L lenses on their new 10D. These people have to make a judgement about what to buy for the money they have. My advice would be to buy few (or only one)but better, and then go out and take pictures and learn what the outfit and yourself is capable of before thinking that you must have that 17-500/2.8 superzoom.
We have also to remember how easy it is for a newcomer to get sucked into the more equipment the better syndrome, when really they should walk first - then run when they have learnt the basics. How many new DSLR users know how to manually meter? Know when to manually focus? Use a tripod? All techniques which SHOULD be learnt. It is too easy to think that a 10D is a bigger/better point and shoot compact - it isn't.

Sorry to go on but it needs to be said otherwise we have a new generation of photographers who just take, not make, pictures.

As for the lenses for ringpulls. I'm working on it!

Fried wrote

"a lens is a tool.
You can rarely judge the quality of a tool by itself.
You must consider the use you will put the tool to.
So, lens criteria may be more or less important to different users"

I couldn't agree more but surely you deserve the best tool for the job. However if you have the knowledge and experience you can use what you have to maximum effect.

Work on the computing principle "GIGO" when it comes to cameras and lenses and you won't go far wrong.


GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

I am really surprised

This is a long discussion about all the technical points of lens performance, price and tradeoffs.

Every decision we make is a trade off.
Price, quality, size, usage etc

The only way I select lens in on the final output. I use Canon and Sigma glass on canon digital bodies.

I mainly use A4 Prints and web presentation.
for the Web almost any lens will do.
For print is it a different matter.

But in saying this I did some tests with an L series lens and standard canon lens for for A4 prints it was hard to tell the difference, especially if you nose was not touching the paper.

So its good so see all the tech curves of lens performance but in the end its the output that counts. There are so many factors that effect the final result where the lens is just one element.

So my advice if you care to listen is ask the shops for trials, do some test prints and make your judgements for yourselves. You may be surprised at the money that can be saved.

(In case you were wondering yes I am a perfectionist generaly but not at any cost).

My criteria for lens selection

Here is my criteria as I select a lens to get. It is in the priority of the last lens I bought as well as the two I am thinking of getting. These are only my choices, yours may differ (and probably should)

1. Focal Length
2. Aperture
3. Image Stabilization
4. Prime/Zoom
5. Sharpness
6. Compatability with extenders
7. Cost
8. Looks
9. Weight
10. Filter size

Quietness of drive is not yet a factor for me as I have not had an occasion where I needed my camera to be ultra quiet yet.

1. Focal Length - absolutely essential, this is the determination based on why am I getting this lens, what am I going to be shooting with it.

2. Aperture - lower is better, this gives me both flexibility and I may be willing to spend more money if I need it for some particular reason, like shooting indoors.

3. Image Stabilization - I love Canon's Image stabilization, he reason will be obvious to anyone that has used it.

4. Prime/Zoom - This is a choice in flexibility both with opportunities as well as how much stuff I have to carry with me. The choice effects sharpness and price.

5. Sharpness - This is way down here, because I found that I do not always want ultra cripness and most lenses these days are close to the limits of optical technology.

6. Compatability with extenders - Gives me more flexibility.

7. Cost - If all of the above say I should get a particular lens, this just determines the timing.

8. Looks - White lenses attract attention, people ask questions, let me take pictures

9. Weight - My 100-400L is at about my limit for handheld weight so anything weighing more is going to be used on tripod, which I will also have to carry around.

10. Filter size - very minor thing which I look at just to see if I can avoid buying another filter size.

1-5 are the important ones, 6-10 are very minor, but I think about them although they probably would not change my mind (except of course #7)

Just my criteria, feel free to ignore as necessary.