besides bokeh, what makes a great lens?

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-25-2011, 01:31 PM

The real answer is the person looking through it at the instant the shutter is pressed.

Unfortunately we are not interested in reality, so we talk contrast, sharpness , resolution, pixie dust, and all sorts of other adjectives

jaieger · 04-25-2011, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by asdf

All you are saying is that lenses of different focal lengths may potentially be suitable in different situations. I don't think anybody is disputing this, nor is anybody bashing lomography here.

Focal length is one argument I made, among others. I also talked about lens characteristics, such as being paper-perfect vs not, and tactile/mechanical attributes.

asdf · 04-25-2011, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by jaieger

Focal length is one argument I made, among others. I also talked about lens characteristics, such as being paper-perfect vs not, and tactile/mechanical attributes.

Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important.

jaieger · 04-25-2011, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by asdf

In his textbook on photography, Ansel Adams recommends to buy a lens of high optical quality. A Joe Blow on the internet tells me to spend potentially thousands of dollars on something that "feels" good. Hmm....

Originally posted by asdf

Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important.

.

sidenote: what would you possibly spend thousands on for something that feels good that doesn't provide knock-out optical quality?

asdf · 04-25-2011, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by jaieger

.

Originally posted by asdf
In his textbook on photography, Ansel Adams recommends to buy a lens of high optical quality. A Joe Blow on the internet tells me to spend potentially thousands of dollars on something that "feels" good. Hmm....
Originally posted by asdf
Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important.

sidenote: what would you possibly spend thousands on for something that feels good that doesn't provide knock-out optical quality?

The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics.

jaieger · 04-25-2011, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by asdf

The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics.

If that's the case, my mistake. Though I took 'feeling' to be the overall image experience - from actually using it, to the rendition of the image having a certain look that appeals to the user. Which, back on topic, is I guess what LBA is hunting for, and what makes a good lens in the hand of the beholder - a lens that feels great from the start to finish in the production of an image.

paperbag846 · 04-25-2011, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by asdf

The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics.

I meant ergonomics. You should read my first post.

Ansel Adams also operated in a time where a bad lens was *BAD* and a good lens was of decent quality by today's standards. You can buy high optical quality for less than 500 dollars. The rest if ergonomics.

asdf · 04-25-2011, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I meant ergonomics. You should read my first post.

I see.

Quote:

Ansel Adams also operated in a time where a bad lens was *BAD* and a good lens was of decent quality by today's standards. You can buy high optical quality for less than 500 dollars. The rest if ergonomics.

From what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs.

paperbag846 · 04-25-2011, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by asdf

rom what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs.

Neat.

DA* also costs a hell of a lot more AND is more heavy.

Therefore, I would suggest that the DA* is for those who need that extra 10% performance, but for the average user, performance from the 55-300 might be more enjoyable?

You seem to change the topic a lot for no reason...

asdf · 04-25-2011, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Therefore, I would suggest that the DA* is for those who need that extra 10% performance, but for the average user, performance from the 55-300 might be more enjoyable?

Well, DA 55-300 also fails in the AF department. It's slow and noisy. It fails in the f-stop department also -- which also affects AF performance.

In any event, if you want to go back to the main topic: if you read a photography magazine, a lens is rated based on its optical qualities, mechanical qualities, practical performance and price relative to these qualities. This is nothing revolutionary.

Hound Tooth · 04-25-2011, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by asdf

From what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs.

Holy crap! What a completely ridiculous comparison! Way to go, you win the prize for most irrelevant comparison on this day. I'd create some gimmicky icon that represents this award, but it's not worth my time and effort.

I guarantee you that some people (yes, even professional photographers) would find more use out of the 55-300mm rather than an FA* 300mm F4 FOR THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS! Your bizarre generalizations derived from archaic Ansel Adams writings are truly baffling.

edit: and anyways, you forgot about pixie dust.

asdf · 04-25-2011, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Hound Tooth

Holy crap! What a completely ridiculous comparison! Way to go, you win the prize for most irrelevant comparison on this day. I'd create some gimmicky icon that represents this award, but it's not worth my time and effort.

Thanks, buddy. I don't know whether you're a raving lunatic or joking. I should invoke Poe's law.

Quote:

I guarantee you that some people (yes, even professional photographers) would find more use out of the 55-300mm rather than an FA* 300mm F4 FOR THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS! Your bizarre generalizations derived from archaic Ansel Adams writings are truly baffling.

edit: and anyways, you forgot about pixie dust.

The warning in Ansel Adams's book was specifically about the optical quality of zooms. From what we've seen lately, the warning still applies. Some "modern" ~$600 zooms are still soft at the long end and have significant barrel distortion at the short end -- just look at some of the other new threads on this forum...

edit: The "pixie dust" is mathematics, physics and glass chemistry.

paperbag846 · 04-25-2011, 05:26 PM

asdf - modern zooms are generally better than primes were in Ansel's day.

so please stop arguing. You don't know what you are talking about.

**robbiec** · 04-25-2011, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by asdf

edit: The "pixie dust" is mathematics, physics and glass chemistry.

Bollocks! the FA Limiteds would be a prime example of a 'Chef' interfering with the ingredients that the computer or mathematician churned out and that is a large part of the reason that they are considered to have "pixie dust"!

asdf · 04-25-2011, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

asdf - modern zooms are generally better than primes were in Ansel's day.

so please stop arguing. You don't know what you are talking about.

You're missing the point I was trying to make. Hound Tooth called someone a measurbator for mentioning basic lens qualities that would've been sought by any member of group f/64. I suppose a mountain peak in the Sierra Nevada is named after a measurbator.

Here's the exchange:
" Laurentiu Cristofor:
A good lens has little distortion, great resolution across the frame, a flat focal field, no chromatic aberrations, resistance to flare and ghosting.
Hound Tooth:
Spoken like a true measurebator..."

04-25-2011, 02:17 PM	#36
jaieger Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 586	Originally posted by asdf The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics. If that's the case, my mistake. Though I took 'feeling' to be the overall image experience - from actually using it, to the rendition of the image having a certain look that appeals to the user. Which, back on topic, is I guess what LBA is hunting for, and what makes a good lens in the hand of the beholder - a lens that feels great from the start to finish in the production of an image. Last edited by jaieger; 04-25-2011 at 02:36 PM.

04-25-2011, 03:16 PM	#41
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by asdf From what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs. Holy crap! What a completely ridiculous comparison! Way to go, you win the prize for most irrelevant comparison on this day. I'd create some gimmicky icon that represents this award, but it's not worth my time and effort. I guarantee you that some people (yes, even professional photographers) would find more use out of the 55-300mm rather than an FA* 300mm F4 FOR THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS! Your bizarre generalizations derived from archaic Ansel Adams writings are truly baffling. edit: and anyways, you forgot about pixie dust. Last edited by Hound Tooth; 04-25-2011 at 03:28 PM.

04-25-2011, 05:45 PM	#44
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	Originally posted by asdf edit: The "pixie dust" is mathematics, physics and glass chemistry. Bollocks! the FA Limiteds would be a prime example of a 'Chef' interfering with the ingredients that the computer or mathematician churned out and that is a large part of the reason that they are considered to have "pixie dust"! Last edited by robbiec; 04-25-2011 at 11:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Misc 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR Bokeh Bokeh Bokeh!	iocchelli	Post Your Photos!	3	03-20-2011 02:22 AM
Great 3d of 31ltd and 43ltd, Bad of 35/2 bokeh	Mystic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	44	12-16-2009 10:09 PM
What Makes a Great Low Light Lense?	Firebird	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	09-09-2009 07:54 AM
Manual lens + K20D makes green?	imtheguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	06-15-2009 09:55 AM
A Shiba Inu makes a great model	m8o	Post Your Photos!	2	06-30-2008 05:58 AM

04-25-2011, 01:31 PM	#31
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	The real answer is the person looking through it at the instant the shutter is pressed. Unfortunately we are not interested in reality, so we talk contrast, sharpness , resolution, pixie dust, and all sorts of other adjectives

04-25-2011, 01:49 PM	#32
jaieger Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 586	Originally posted by asdf All you are saying is that lenses of different focal lengths may potentially be suitable in different situations. I don't think anybody is disputing this, nor is anybody bashing lomography here. Focal length is one argument I made, among others. I also talked about lens characteristics, such as being paper-perfect vs not, and tactile/mechanical attributes.

04-25-2011, 01:52 PM	#33
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by jaieger Focal length is one argument I made, among others. I also talked about lens characteristics, such as being paper-perfect vs not, and tactile/mechanical attributes. Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important.

04-25-2011, 01:58 PM	#34
jaieger Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 586	Originally posted by asdf In his textbook on photography, Ansel Adams recommends to buy a lens of high optical quality. A Joe Blow on the internet tells me to spend potentially thousands of dollars on something that "feels" good. Hmm.... Originally posted by asdf Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important. . sidenote: what would you possibly spend thousands on for something that feels good that doesn't provide knock-out optical quality?

04-25-2011, 02:08 PM	#35
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by jaieger . Originally posted by asdf In his textbook on photography, Ansel Adams recommends to buy a lens of high optical quality. A Joe Blow on the internet tells me to spend potentially thousands of dollars on something that "feels" good. Hmm.... Originally posted by asdf Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important. sidenote: what would you possibly spend thousands on for something that feels good that doesn't provide knock-out optical quality? The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics.

04-25-2011, 02:28 PM	#37
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by asdf The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics. I meant ergonomics. You should read my first post. Ansel Adams also operated in a time where a bad lens was BAD and a good lens was of decent quality by today's standards. You can buy high optical quality for less than 500 dollars. The rest if ergonomics.

04-25-2011, 02:36 PM	#38
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by paperbag846 I meant ergonomics. You should read my first post. I see. Quote: Ansel Adams also operated in a time where a bad lens was BAD and a good lens was of decent quality by today's standards. You can buy high optical quality for less than 500 dollars. The rest if ergonomics. From what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs.

04-25-2011, 02:44 PM	#39
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by asdf rom what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs. Neat. DA* also costs a hell of a lot more AND is more heavy. Therefore, I would suggest that the DA* is for those who need that extra 10% performance, but for the average user, performance from the 55-300 might be more enjoyable? You seem to change the topic a lot for no reason...

04-25-2011, 02:52 PM	#40
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by paperbag846 Therefore, I would suggest that the DA* is for those who need that extra 10% performance, but for the average user, performance from the 55-300 might be more enjoyable? Well, DA 55-300 also fails in the AF department. It's slow and noisy. It fails in the f-stop department also -- which also affects AF performance. In any event, if you want to go back to the main topic: if you read a photography magazine, a lens is rated based on its optical qualities, mechanical qualities, practical performance and price relative to these qualities. This is nothing revolutionary.

04-25-2011, 05:05 PM	#42
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Hound Tooth Holy crap! What a completely ridiculous comparison! Way to go, you win the prize for most irrelevant comparison on this day. I'd create some gimmicky icon that represents this award, but it's not worth my time and effort. Thanks, buddy. I don't know whether you're a raving lunatic or joking. I should invoke Poe's law. Quote: I guarantee you that some people (yes, even professional photographers) would find more use out of the 55-300mm rather than an FA* 300mm F4 FOR THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS! Your bizarre generalizations derived from archaic Ansel Adams writings are truly baffling. edit: and anyways, you forgot about pixie dust. The warning in Ansel Adams's book was specifically about the optical quality of zooms. From what we've seen lately, the warning still applies. Some "modern" ~$600 zooms are still soft at the long end and have significant barrel distortion at the short end -- just look at some of the other new threads on this forum... edit: The "pixie dust" is mathematics, physics and glass chemistry.

04-25-2011, 05:26 PM	#43
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	asdf - modern zooms are generally better than primes were in Ansel's day. so please stop arguing. You don't know what you are talking about.

04-25-2011, 05:53 PM	#45
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by paperbag846 asdf - modern zooms are generally better than primes were in Ansel's day. so please stop arguing. You don't know what you are talking about. You're missing the point I was trying to make. Hound Tooth called someone a measurbator for mentioning basic lens qualities that would've been sought by any member of group f/64. I suppose a mountain peak in the Sierra Nevada is named after a measurbator. Here's the exchange: " Laurentiu Cristofor: A good lens has little distortion, great resolution across the frame, a flat focal field, no chromatic aberrations, resistance to flare and ghosting. Hound Tooth: Spoken like a true measurebator..."