What Is "Good Glass"?

Daphatty wrote in post #15275157
Good glass is subjective. I personally hate the nifty fifty but time and time again you will hear people call it good glass. Rent some lenses and figure out for yourself what you like.

ed rader wrote in post #15275171
good glass allows you to use your camera to it's potential or nearly so. what's good for a rebel is not necessarily good for, say, the 5d3.

ed rader wrote in post #15275176
good glass refers to the entire lens, not just the optics. there are plenty of lenses that are optically very good but do not focus reliably. these i call "she-it glass". the 50 1.8 is in that category, imo.

I, like a lot of other people, bought the 50mm f/1.8 II because it is 'good inexpensive glass'. I put it on my T1i and could do things that I couldn't do with the kit lens. I put in on my 60D where it really shines. Nice light, cheap, wide aperture, decent focusing lens. I really like that lens on my 60D. It just works.

Last week I got a 5Dc. The 5Dc/50 1.8 combo is a nightmare. It can't/won't focus reliably under ANY conditions, low-light, ETTL-II flash, bright sunshine, it just isn't reliable. And it is too wide (focal length). That lens is less than useless to me on the 5Dc. I prefer the 85 1.8 and 28 2.8 on that camera.

I have a Tokina 19-35 that is good on my film body. I find it worse than the EF-s 18-55 on my 60D. It comes to life on the 5Dc. Go figure.

Good apparently depends, a least a little, on what body you bolt it to.

TSchrief wrote in post #15274838
Good glass is like middle class. Everyone has their own definition. It is usually based on themselves.

I am middle class. I own good glass.
EVERYONE with less money than me is poor. Everyone using 'lesser' glass than me is a snap-shooter.
EVERYONE with more money than me is a rich snob. Everyone with all red-ringed-L-glass is a snob...

Great explanation!

Most lenses are able to produce good images - because sharpness and such is not needed for good images. Good sharpness is only needed for technical good images.

I make my best images with a ~50 years old Meyer Trioplan lens - that lens was even cheap back then. Has only three lenses inside. On the DSLR it is not very sharp. It is spherical over corrected when used wide open. After "normal" definition it produces very ugly bokeh - and exactly this is the reason why this lens is today that much sought after.
Ebay prices are today 4 times those of summer 2010.

L lenses

TSchrief wrote in post #15275014
Define 'relatively'. Define 'better'. My 28 2.8 is faster at 28mm than the 24-105L. Does that make it better? My 28 2.8 is razor sharp, with no distortion at f/8. Does that make it better than the 24-70 2.8?
NOTHING to do with money? Like better tires has nothing to do with money. Or a better house. Or better politicians. We are back to defining 'better'.
Sorry - can't comment on Zen or motorcycles.

I see you can't comment on the book.....love your post that outlines your frustration. check out the book. it asks the same questions as you.....hence your funny post's aggressive irrelevance. if only you had done a little research on what I am saying, to enlighten yourself before you think you need to disagree with someone you don't.