[HarisF1]

I thought this might be an interesting topic to some.

The idea came from a few images that were beautiful to look at but poor when pixel peeping - I realised this is a bit of a trait for some of our most famous lenses.

So I'll begin. The DA 15mm Limited is my pick - this lens delivers wonderful contrasty images but anything off-centre becomes a blurry mess. I've had so many copies and they all do the same. Great shots, blurry sides... but those images look fantastic!

[UncleVanya]

Smc da 18-135

[Kevin B123]

Smc da 18-135

We have a winner

[ChristianRock]

M 200 f4 comes to mind. Beautiful rendering and colors.
But the M 85 f2 is probably much more loved, though soft at wide apertures.

[pres589]

I remember Digitalis blowing up the idea that the DA 15 Ltd produces images with poor quality edges.

I own a number of lenses that the average pixel peeper seems to be turned off by. M series 40mm f2.8, M 85mm f2.0, DA 18-135, DA 15 Ltd. The Sigma 28mm EX DG probably fits into this category as well. Definitely my Kalt 28mm f2.8; these are both 3rd party k-mount lenses so I'm listing them here.

Pixel peepers seem to like the DA 35 f2.4 which I own and don't really care for as there's more to life than sharpness. I find that lens to be competent but not artistic, if that makes sense. Meanwhile I would love to hit a city with the DA 15, DA 18-135, and M 85 in my bag as a complete kit.

[normhead]

I remember Digitalis blowing up the idea that the DA 15 Ltd produces images with poor quality edges.

I own a number of lenses that the average pixel peeper seems to be turned off by. M series 40mm f2.8, M 85mm f2.0, DA 18-135, DA 15 Ltd. The Sigma 28mm EX DG probably fits into this category as well. Definitely my Kalt 28mm f2.8; these are both 3rd party k-mount lenses so I'm listing them here.

Pixel peepers seem to like the DA 35 f2.4 which I own and don't really care for as there's more to life than sharpness. I find that lens to be competent but not artistic, if that makes sense. Meanwhile I would love to hit a city with the DA 15, DA 18-135, and M 85 in my bag as a complete kit.

My DA 18-135 is on the camera right now. I own the DA 16-85, DA 55 1.4, Sigma 70 macro, DA 35 2.5 , FA 50 macro, Tamron 17-50, Sigma 24 macro, and D-FA 100 macro. All in the same range, anyone of which might produce technically sharper images. Pixel keepers look at sharpness, but not rendering, transitions, out of focus areas , C.A. Some of the best and most expensive images ever taken don't even have decent centre sharpness. So photographically what are these people even looking at?

I refuse to even consider the opinions who look at pixel peeping as a main concern. Look at everything else first. And understand the relevance. If you have a grip of images all o which are equal in rendering, then see which one has the sharpest corners and decide if it's worth the money.

So my answer to the question wold be, for what

I looked at tha DA* 55 1.4 and the D-FA* 50 1.4, and seeing for most images they give me about the same thing... the D-FA 1.4 wasn't worth the money. But I shoot wildlife, birds mushroom, almost everything but portraits. Someone who shoota portraits or extreme DoF might be happier with A D-FA* 50 1.4 or D-FA* 70-200 2.8

I'm fine with a DA* 55 1.4 and DA* 60-250.

It's the money, it's the weight, the overall functionality and flexibility. And it's about paying for functionality you don't need.
I shot some real estate a while ago with my FA-J 18-35. Brutal full size, at 3840 x 2160 it was excellent.

I could have paid for a Sigma 15-30 1.8 Art, it would have been a waste of money. It would have been sitting in the closet awaiting a use, just like the FA-J des most of the time. Hw much investment do you want sitting in your cupboard. Half of understanding photography is understanding when you need a top end lens, and having it with you when you need it. The "just buy the best whether you need it or not" IMHO, costs you images. The only ones of use are the ones in your camera bag. If a lens take up the space of three normal lenses because it's super sharp, you're probably limiting yourself with "sharper" glass. At 3840 x 2160, almost everything is sharp. Only those who need more resolution should even be thinking about pixel peeping. The question is how does it render (my FA-J 18-35 renders beautifully for low res architecture). You can waste a lot of money buying ultra sharp lenses you'll never have use for.

Having more toys for the same money is often the more satisfying path.

Pixel peeping can cost you big bucks, don't do it man. Buy the lenses that impress you with the way they render what you shoot most, at the size you like to display them.
Pixel peeper are trying to convince you that if you use he same lenses as the best in the world, you'll have a chance to be one of them. if that was true, every D-FA* 1.4 user would be recognized as a world class photographer. That's just taking advantage of people's fantasies. Good corporate marketing strategy. Not very good photographic strategy.

So my answer would be all of them except the D-FAs and a few DA*s.

[aaacb]

M 200 f4 comes to mind. Beautiful rendering and colors.

agree, my copy on the k1ii is never biting sharp when viewed at 100% but it has many other qualities and i never need that enlargement

da 15 was my first thought, followed by fa 43

[HarisF1]

Loving the discussion already. Lots of great examples.

Here's one from the DA15 I used to own a couple years ago. I didn't realise how poor the details were until I pixel peeped a little. Genuinely speaking, I could not get the sides to focus anywhere below f/11.

[richard0170]

I remember Digitalis blowing up the idea that the DA 15 Ltd produces images with poor quality edges.

I own a number of lenses that the average pixel peeper seems to be turned off by. M series 40mm f2.8, M 85mm f2.0, DA 18-135, DA 15 Ltd. The Sigma 28mm EX DG probably fits into this category as well. Definitely my Kalt 28mm f2.8; these are both 3rd party k-mount lenses so I'm listing them here.

Pixel peepers seem to like the DA 35 f2.4 which I own and don't really care for as there's more to life than sharpness. I find that lens to be competent but not artistic, if that makes sense. Meanwhile I would love to hit a city with the DA 15, DA 18-135, and M 85 in my bag as a complete kit.

I think a lot of pixel peepers don't know what a good lens is or how to take a good image. I have had 2 M 40mm f2.8 lenses. I never noticed any problems with the first one on film, which got sold off few years ago, but I did struggle with it on my K3. The HD DA 40mm f2.8 I have never had any problems with. I picked up a second M 40mm for £50 a couple of months ago for film use again. I tried it out on my Fuji X-T1, and from f4 it is impressively sharp and contrasty. I can only conclude the previous digital disappointments were down to my own technique in focusing. The M 200 f4 I own is also rather average on my K3 or KP, but pretty good on the Fuji. So again I put this down to my own faults rather than the lens.
I have never experienced any issues with the 15mm at any aperture.

[Des]

Here's one from the DA15 I used to own a couple years ago. I didn't realise how poor the details were until I pixel peeped a little.

I take your point about the DA 15 Limited generally, but.I think that copy was seriously decentered. I don't see anything acceptably sharp on the left side of that image - to the extent that if detracts from enjoyment of the image.

We often have "Which lens should I get?" threads in which people say, "I want the sharpest lens". It's understandable - all things equal, the ability to render more detail is a good thing (and essential for some uses, such as macro). And users naturally latch onto something measurable. The problem is reviews also dwell on what is measurable. It's easy to say, "This lens is soft in the corners"; it's hard to say, "This lens renders beautifully", because that sounds subjective. So we go around the loop where users say they want sharp, and reviewers rate for sharpness above all.

I started out on the same track. I used to take DxOmark ratings into account when choosing lenses. But I realised what a total joke that was when they rated the DA 35mm f2.4 way higher than the DA 20-40 f2.8-4 Limited (Lenses Database - DxOMark, apply the KAF mount filter). Yes the 35 is a bit sharper, particularly in the corners (I tested my own copies), but the 20-40 produces beautiful images - there is no comparison. Look at the colours and the bokeh (yes that is another spider in the background):


For any newby reading this, the takeaway is that there is much more to lens quality than what is shown in test charts. Give weight to real world images, and to the comments of experienced users. There is a reason why we love our Limiteds and our old lenses (CA and all), even if the reviewers don't.

[Paul the Sunman]

I agree about the DA15 and DA 18-135, but still love them. By the way, my DA15 now performs much better after its decentring issues were fixed.

[pres589]

The only issues I have with the M 40mm is that it isn't, say, an f1.7 max aperture lens. And with gloves on the focus ring is not at all fun to work with. On film I love the images that I get with it. If it was faster than f2.0 I would use it a whole lot more.

[tokyoscape]

...The DA 15mm Limited is my pick - this lens delivers wonderful contrasty images but anything off-centre becomes a blurry mess. I've had so many copies and they all do the same. Great shots, blurry sides... but those images look fantastic!

My 2 cents, I used to have a DA15. It performs better if the focus is confirmed at about 1/4 from the left or right edge of the scene when use it for landscape + on a tripod.
That's the way, we can get an average of good sharpness from center to edges.

[Ronald Oakes]

Smc da 18-135

Agreed....

[normhead]

A lot of 15mm users here.... there must be a sore spot.