List of lenses in the PF database scoring a 9+ for Bokeh/Aberrations/Sharpness

**boriscleto** · 03-31-2013, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

No, they just miss on "aberrations" (8.9 and 8.8 respectively).

My mistake, I thought he was listing every lens with a 9 overall score...

Everyone knows the FAs get marked down for Aberrations...

lytrytyr · 03-31-2013, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

The bigger surprise to me is that the Ks are rated so much higher than the identical SMC Taks in most cases...

Maybe an effect that M42 lenses are used
by more mature or enthusiastic photographers,
who are more critical in their review standards?

stevebrot · 03-31-2013, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Sagitta

This was going to be posted as a reply to another thread, but I think it may be worth posting just on its own.

I poked through the lens database and every lens that showed as a 9+ for those three categories (regardless of the rest) I jotted down. In theory, these should be the 'best of the best' (at least according to people who peruse the forums).

Me thinks somebody has too much time on their hands.

Steve

stevebrot · 03-31-2013, 06:13 PM

I guess a good thing to ask would be:

"Define aberrations"

Steve

**boriscleto** · 03-31-2013, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I guess a good thing to ask would be:

"Define aberrations"

Steve

You can be sure that most people reviewing the FA77 here have read the photozone review...

gmargo · 03-31-2013, 06:21 PM

Interesting list. There are few lenses under 40mm that made the cut in this particular study, and those are old, MF, discontinued lenses at that. Given that you need to go down to around 36 mm to get a "normal" lens on a crop body, and down to 24 mm for a 35mm equivalent FF lens, which is often a preferred "normal" lens for many, it makes the gap all the more striking.

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-31-2013, 06:22 PM

Darn, that's all my lenses!

LBA is a harsh mistress...

**monochrome** · 03-31-2013, 06:35 PM - **1 Like**

Way back when (like 1998 - 2004) when the internet was a new thing and discovery in itself was fun I read PDML, jcolwell.ca and Stan's Pentax Photography (which compiled PDML) and AOHC and MIR and photozone and Boz Dimitrov and Fred Sherfy and Paul Provencher and Karen Nakamura and Mark Roberts and the defunct (but semi resurrected) Monaghan's Mega Cult Classics to learn about the best Pentax lenses to covet. I had a couple hundred Pentax Bookmarks (that got lost when a laptop HD failed). These are the main websites I recall off the top of my head - there are dozens and dozens more. I think the more interested Pentaxians in the late 90's did these to support Pentax - and they're still going. Many of these websites link other websites and you can follow those paths for months - or years!

In general those posters cited long personal experience with Pentax lenses, or comparisons of lenses they actually owned or had borrowed from other PDML members in the same FL. Ratings, though possibly not consistent across focal lengths, were certainly relative within a focal length, so the Best lens in that group probably was the best. The "Best Pentax Lens Ever" probably was a great lens. Those reviews were mostly objective - and since there were several sources, repetition carried some weight (though in some cases one source simply quoted another).

While our lens database is less than consistent and objective it has the advantage of being concise and fast to access. I use it for a quick hit and for new lenses, but I still go back to the old sources for legacy opinions.

stevebrot · 03-31-2013, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

You can be sure that most people reviewing the FA77 here have read the photozone review...

The FA 77 is only one of many FA lenses and while there are also many types of "aberrations", the photozone.de reviews only address CA.

So again, I would ask what aberration it is that we are rating lenses for? The reason I ask is that I was puzzled the first time I saw "aberrations" listed in the review section. With the possible exception of CA, this is not something that your average photographer is in the position to speak to.

Steve

(...as always, there is a very good Wikipedia article on the general subject: Optical aberration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

drugal · 03-31-2013, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by gmargo

There are few lenses under 40mm

This is interesting.

I looked a few of my favorites up in the database. It appears that bokeh disqualifies the DA 15, 21, and F28 2.8 from the list, which may be less important for some for a normal/wide angle.

kevwil · 03-31-2013, 08:40 PM

I think it would be interesting to take the bokeh out of the qualifications and re-do the list.

I agree that the aberrations should be better defined or broken out into specific aberration types.

**PPPPPP42** · 03-31-2013, 08:42 PM

A numbers based system is utterly worthless without guidelines and a frame of reference at the very least. Its easier just to use the overall numbers to identify which lenses are generally regarded as good and then read specific reviews where you can see people compare this to that or list specific pros and cons in their opinion.

There is also the issue of camera technology skewing results. As the bodies are getting to the point of out resolving many lenses stuff that used to be amazing is really showing its age from a purely technical standpoint (artistic images aside that is). Todays great DSLR is tomorrows paper weight and how good a lens does is totally dependent on what camera its attached to which is often missing from reviews.

I would really like to see a tutorial on how not to do a worthless fanboy (or girl) review with specific examples of what a good example in any rated criteria is vs a bad example, and more importantly a description of what each number should represent. It should be impossible to legitimately get a 10 and an acceptable but not impressive lens should be a 5 (think kit lenses). With the current skewed system a 5 rating would be near abysmal as the only time anyone rates a lens lower is when it has glaring issues (usually with that copy rather than the design) or glaring issues with the person holding the camera.

I think we should start by giving every single thing a -2 in every category just to leave breathing room at the top.

twitch · 03-31-2013, 08:56 PM

What would be far more interesting would be where people ranked from top to bottom the lenses they owned, zooms and primes separately, and then those ranking lists were somehow combined into a superset of rankings.

So for my prime lenses I'd rank them

FA31
FA77
K50/1.2
FA50/1.4
DA70
DA15
DA40
DA21
FA24/2

By combining lots of these ranking we'd get a pattern emerging of which are the "real" 10/10 lenses and not just which lenses were bought by novice users that compared well to their kit lens.

lytrytyr · 03-31-2013, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by twitch

What would be far more interesting would be where people ranked from top to bottom the lenses they owned

That would also be hard to do in a meaningful way.
One problem is to compare a "prima donna" lens
that just does one or two things excellently (say portraiture)
with a versatile "maid-of-all-work" that does most jobs well,
without being particularly outstanding.

VisualDarkness · 03-31-2013, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by twitch

What would be far more interesting would be where people ranked from top to bottom the lenses they owned, zooms and primes separately, and then those ranking lists were somehow combined into a superset of rankings.

So for my prime lenses I'd rank them

FA31
FA77
K50/1.2
FA50/1.4
DA70
DA15
DA40
DA21
FA24/2

Doesn't mean say a da21 is a poor lens, but it is no fa limited.

Too hard!

Hmm...

1. DA* 55/1.4, DA 70/2.4, DA* 300/4 and maybe even my Sigma 20/1.8 as I use it a lot!
2. DA 40/2.8
3. M 50/1.4
Yeah, there goes all my often used primes into the first slot. Can you see the hell that I'm in each time deciding on what lens to bring on a walk? Often it results in a heavy bag, with a zoom and my Pentax Q added too.

Ps. I probably forgot a lens or two.

03-31-2013, 06:35 PM - 1 Like	#23
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Way back when (like 1998 - 2004) when the internet was a new thing and discovery in itself was fun I read PDML, jcolwell.ca and Stan's Pentax Photography (which compiled PDML) and AOHC and MIR and photozone and Boz Dimitrov and Fred Sherfy and Paul Provencher and Karen Nakamura and Mark Roberts and the defunct (but semi resurrected) Monaghan's Mega Cult Classics to learn about the best Pentax lenses to covet. I had a couple hundred Pentax Bookmarks (that got lost when a laptop HD failed). These are the main websites I recall off the top of my head - there are dozens and dozens more. I think the more interested Pentaxians in the late 90's did these to support Pentax - and they're still going. Many of these websites link other websites and you can follow those paths for months - or years! In general those posters cited long personal experience with Pentax lenses, or comparisons of lenses they actually owned or had borrowed from other PDML members in the same FL. Ratings, though possibly not consistent across focal lengths, were certainly relative within a focal length, so the Best lens in that group probably was the best. The "Best Pentax Lens Ever" probably was a great lens. Those reviews were mostly objective - and since there were several sources, repetition carried some weight (though in some cases one source simply quoted another). While our lens database is less than consistent and objective it has the advantage of being concise and fast to access. I use it for a quick hit and for new lenses, but I still go back to the old sources for legacy opinions. Last edited by monochrome; 04-01-2013 at 08:49 AM.

03-31-2013, 06:38 PM	#24
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by boriscleto You can be sure that most people reviewing the FA77 here have read the photozone review... The FA 77 is only one of many FA lenses and while there are also many types of "aberrations", the photozone.de reviews only address CA. So again, I would ask what aberration it is that we are rating lenses for? The reason I ask is that I was puzzled the first time I saw "aberrations" listed in the review section. With the possible exception of CA, this is not something that your average photographer is in the position to speak to. Steve (...as always, there is a very good Wikipedia article on the general subject: Optical aberration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia... Last edited by stevebrot; 03-31-2013 at 06:44 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is there a list of Pentax and aftermarket weather sealed lenses?	VoiceOfReason	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	08-10-2018 10:47 PM
Error Database error accessing list of liked posts	bwDraco	Site Suggestions and Help	2	02-03-2013 01:07 PM
Huge test on the influence of fungus in lenses (on 9 lenses)	CarbonR	Photographic Technique	18	03-14-2011 10:34 PM
Sharpness/bokeh test various lenses	Prox-iee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	02-27-2011 01:10 PM

03-31-2013, 05:37 PM	#16
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by lytrytyr No, they just miss on "aberrations" (8.9 and 8.8 respectively). My mistake, I thought he was listing every lens with a 9 overall score... Everyone knows the FAs get marked down for Aberrations...

03-31-2013, 05:44 PM	#17
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by boriscleto The bigger surprise to me is that the Ks are rated so much higher than the identical SMC Taks in most cases... Maybe an effect that M42 lenses are used by more mature or enthusiastic photographers, who are more critical in their review standards?

03-31-2013, 06:08 PM	#18
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Sagitta This was going to be posted as a reply to another thread, but I think it may be worth posting just on its own. I poked through the lens database and every lens that showed as a 9+ for those three categories (regardless of the rest) I jotted down. In theory, these should be the 'best of the best' (at least according to people who peruse the forums). Me thinks somebody has too much time on their hands. Steve

03-31-2013, 06:13 PM	#19
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	I guess a good thing to ask would be: "Define aberrations" Steve

03-31-2013, 06:18 PM	#20
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by stevebrot I guess a good thing to ask would be: "Define aberrations" Steve You can be sure that most people reviewing the FA77 here have read the photozone review...

03-31-2013, 06:21 PM	#21
gmargo New Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 7	Interesting list. There are few lenses under 40mm that made the cut in this particular study, and those are old, MF, discontinued lenses at that. Given that you need to go down to around 36 mm to get a "normal" lens on a crop body, and down to 24 mm for a 35mm equivalent FF lens, which is often a preferred "normal" lens for many, it makes the gap all the more striking.

03-31-2013, 06:22 PM	#22
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	Darn, that's all my lenses! LBA is a harsh mistress...

03-31-2013, 06:38 PM	#25
drugal Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Detroit suburbs Photos: Gallery Posts: 259	Originally posted by gmargo There are few lenses under 40mm This is interesting. I looked a few of my favorites up in the database. It appears that bokeh disqualifies the DA 15, 21, and F28 2.8 from the list, which may be less important for some for a normal/wide angle.

03-31-2013, 08:40 PM	#26
kevwil Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Frederick, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 58	I think it would be interesting to take the bokeh out of the qualifications and re-do the list. I agree that the aberrations should be better defined or broken out into specific aberration types.

03-31-2013, 08:42 PM	#27
PPPPPP42 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 947	A numbers based system is utterly worthless without guidelines and a frame of reference at the very least. Its easier just to use the overall numbers to identify which lenses are generally regarded as good and then read specific reviews where you can see people compare this to that or list specific pros and cons in their opinion. There is also the issue of camera technology skewing results. As the bodies are getting to the point of out resolving many lenses stuff that used to be amazing is really showing its age from a purely technical standpoint (artistic images aside that is). Todays great DSLR is tomorrows paper weight and how good a lens does is totally dependent on what camera its attached to which is often missing from reviews. I would really like to see a tutorial on how not to do a worthless fanboy (or girl) review with specific examples of what a good example in any rated criteria is vs a bad example, and more importantly a description of what each number should represent. It should be impossible to legitimately get a 10 and an acceptable but not impressive lens should be a 5 (think kit lenses). With the current skewed system a 5 rating would be near abysmal as the only time anyone rates a lens lower is when it has glaring issues (usually with that copy rather than the design) or glaring issues with the person holding the camera. I think we should start by giving every single thing a -2 in every category just to leave breathing room at the top.

03-31-2013, 08:56 PM	#28
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	What would be far more interesting would be where people ranked from top to bottom the lenses they owned, zooms and primes separately, and then those ranking lists were somehow combined into a superset of rankings. So for my prime lenses I'd rank them FA31 FA77 K50/1.2 FA50/1.4 DA70 DA15 DA40 DA21 FA24/2 By combining lots of these ranking we'd get a pattern emerging of which are the "real" 10/10 lenses and not just which lenses were bought by novice users that compared well to their kit lens.

03-31-2013, 09:01 PM	#29
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by twitch What would be far more interesting would be where people ranked from top to bottom the lenses they owned That would also be hard to do in a meaningful way. One problem is to compare a "prima donna" lens that just does one or two things excellently (say portraiture) with a versatile "maid-of-all-work" that does most jobs well, without being particularly outstanding.

03-31-2013, 09:03 PM	#30
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Originally posted by twitch What would be far more interesting would be where people ranked from top to bottom the lenses they owned, zooms and primes separately, and then those ranking lists were somehow combined into a superset of rankings. So for my prime lenses I'd rank them FA31 FA77 K50/1.2 FA50/1.4 DA70 DA15 DA40 DA21 FA24/2 Doesn't mean say a da21 is a poor lens, but it is no fa limited. Too hard! Hmm... 1. DA* 55/1.4, DA 70/2.4, DA* 300/4 and maybe even my Sigma 20/1.8 as I use it a lot! 2. DA 40/2.8 3. M 50/1.4 Yeah, there goes all my often used primes into the first slot. Can you see the hell that I'm in each time deciding on what lens to bring on a walk? Often it results in a heavy bag, with a zoom and my Pentax Q added too. Ps. I probably forgot a lens or two.