[normhead]

I know what I see is not necessarily what others see, but if I'm buying gear for me, what I see is what matters. The democratic approach is not the approach I would use here, especially when I review things like what images get the most votes in our regular contests.

The GR lens has a distinctive rendering. So does the 31mm limited. Not everyone in a particular poll (especially if it's a controlled test-shot comparison, which may not highlight the lens's strengths or how they might apply to the user's intended real-world subjects) is going to select the 31mm as providing the best images, as it does have its technical flaws. Not all users are looking for or even sensitive to those differences in rendering, and those differences aren't relevant or even beneficial for every shooting situation. I'd value one thorough review by a perceptive observer (like this one: Guest Review: Pentax SMC FA 31mm f1.8 Limited - phillipreeve.net) over a hundred blind polls.

So, in other words... no?

Honestly, do you think the couple of guys who selected the image DA 18-55 image in my "best 35mm poll" knew they preferred the DA 18-55 over the DA 18-135, Tamron 17-50, DA 35 2.4, SMC 35 3.5, and FA 35-80? What I'm trying to ascertain is what you've done to confirm that you like that one best.

You like some guy's blah.blah , blah and I've bought lenses the same way. After I buy I test, and sometimes the results are surprising. Reduced to 3840x2160, my favourite 35mm lens is the FA 35-80. The rendering just appeals to me. That based on picking it's images out from the images of 6 there lenses.

IMHO a lot of lens preference is based on confirmation bias. You decide which one you want (based on blah blah blah) then defend your position.

In every one of my polls, I didn't prefer the image I thought I would.

Especially with lenses like the 31, many of the people who claim they like it don't even understand what's god about it. Many of them just want to be 31 shooters just for its reputation. Many could take the same images they always take with a cheaper lens. The 31 has a feature set geared towards working commercial photographers. Many other lenses do as well for landscape and snap shots.

Like you, I don't care what others like, I like to see a group of similar images so I can differentiate what I like. The notion that you can do that from text or images from a single lens floors me. Cameras produce images, not text.You can't compare different images and see the difference between lenses. You need side by side comparisons.

The advantage to posting a blind poll is not that you find out what others like (although that's kind of fun). It's about you finding out what you like, without bias confirmation taking over.

---------- Post added 12-15-20 at 12:46 PM ----------

I like to have both options, large aperture and smaller. Although I have found that I've under-utilized smaller apertures at some points in the past. And with m4/3, it's f5.6 and be there

APS-c is ƒ5.6 and be there, m4/3 is probably f4 and be there. It's all about the diffraction limit. The smaller the pixels, the quicker images are affected by diffraction. On my 1 inch sensor it's ƒ2.8 and be there. That's awesome in low light situations.

I often carry my DA*55 1.4 in my bag. But for the amount I use shallow DoF. it's rarely used. I have options as well, but, I make a point o having the lens I'm most likely to use the way I shoot on the camera, and I'm conscious of weight. Carrying a 2.8 lens on the odd chance of wanting to shoot 2.8 would be an un-necessary waste of energy. It's not about me having fewer options, it's about being prepared for the images I usually take, and not carry lenses on my camera for spot use capabilities. The one exception being telephotos. On a hike if I see wildlife I want a telephoto on the camera. If I see a landscape, a few minutes for a lens change doesn't cost you the image. So I almost always carry at least 300mm on the camera. ( DA 60-250 with 1.4 or DA 55-300 PLM) Not my 300mm 2.8 though. That would be as crazy as any other 2.8.

If on the other hand you shoot enough at 2.8 to justify it being your main lens, I understand you point. As general rule 2.8 lenses have less zoom range, force more lens changes, and are much heavier an cost a lot more.. I have to be seriously gaining some kind of advantage to put up with the negatives.

I won't put my Tamron 17-50 on my K-3 instead of my DA 18-135. The 18-135 gives me so much more the way I shoot, but I'm sure you could possibly say the opposite and be right based on the way you shoot.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-16-2020 at 07:38 PM.

[er1kksen]

Yes, I think my reply made it clear that the answer to your first to question was "no."

I've bought and tried a lot of lenses and figured out enough about what makes some of them keepers for me, and others not so much, as well as how that relates to qualified information from other observers, to be able to bring a little more to it than "blah blah blah." I don't formally test, but I do shoot hundreds of frames per day for much of the year. As far as confirming my biases- if the gear gives me what I'm looking for, that's the point, right? If not, it gets sold and I try something else. Sometimes I'm surprised by what does or doesn't work best for me, but trial and error yields some insights so by now I have a better idea than not as to what I'm looking for before I buy. That is the basis of my recommendations in this thread asking for other users' recommendations.

Is your bias that no one can learn anything by experience that would be more useful to them than a random poll of other people who may have totally different needs and preferences?

[AgentL]

APS-c is ƒ5.6 and be there, m4/3 is probably f4 and be there. It's all about the diffraction limit. The smaller the pixels, the quicker images are affected by diffraction. On my 1 inch sensor it's ƒ2.8 and be there. That's awesome in low light situations.

Diffraction isn't really a real-world, noticeable thing without pixel peeping until f8 or beyond. I think strict equivalency is a little bogus, but from years and years of M4/3 experience I have found f5.6 to be a sweet spot, not only for a lot of lens sharpness, but depth-of-field as well. F4 is kind of an in-betweener, I generally prefer either smaller or larger.

[normhead]

Diffraction isn't really a real-world, noticeable thing without pixel peeping until f8 or beyond. I think strict equivalency is a little bogus, but from years and years of M4/3 experience I have found f5.6 to be a sweet spot, not only for a lot of lens sharpness, but depth-of-field as well. F4 is kind of an in-betweener, I generally prefer either smaller or larger.

You do know that the diffraction and CA limits are determined by the width of diffraction bands compared to the width of the pixels? As the pixels get smaller and smaller the diffraction limit gets wider an wider. ƒ5.6 on 4/3 would be about the same as 8 APS-c or ƒ11 on FF, using the same MP sensor. However when you use a K-5 and a K-1 16 MP and 36 MP, the diffraction limits are about the same, because the pixel size is about the same. And diffraction is visible even on very cropped images.

This is a ZS100 1 inch sensor shot at ƒ4. Diffraction is everywhere if you know what you're looking for.


K-3 24 MP at 100 ISO and ƒ5.6. Almost no diffraction at all.


Diffraction, Tia with a Q. ƒ2.8


Tia with the ZS100 sensor, ƒ 3.1


K-3 Tia, K-3 (APS-c) ƒ4.5

The differences are pretty clear, no need to pixel peep.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-15-2020 at 07:44 PM.

[AgentL]

I'm not disputing the existence of diffraction as a concept, I'm just saying that f5.6 on a MFT lens is perfectly sharp and fine for real world use.

[normhead]

Yes, I think my reply made it clear that the answer to your first to question was "no."

Is your bias that no one can learn anything by experience that would be more useful to them than a random poll of other people who may have totally different needs and preferences?

I do the polls as a method of sharing with interested people. Polls don't effect my judgement of what I like. but, you seem pretty intent on misrepresenting what I'm saying, and intentionally missing what my point is.

As I said already once, what you say is no sweat off my back, believe what you want. (By the way, you're on my ignore list now. I will neither see nor respond to your posts.)

[er1kksen]

I do the polls as a method of sharing with interested people. Polls don't effect my judgement of what I like. but, you seem pretty intent on misrepresenting what I'm saying, and intentionally missing what my point is. So Boriscletoed.

As I said already once, what you say is no sweat off my back, believe what you want. (By the way, you're on my ignore list now. I will neither see nor respond to your posts.)

Ha! That's refreshing. I'd have been open to any attempt on Normhead's part to explain what he apparently really meant, but I guess it can remain one of those eternal mysteries that keeps life spicy.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 12-17-2020 at 09:09 AM. Reason: unhelpful insult

[normhead]

I'm not disputing the existence of diffraction as a concept, I'm just saying that f5.6 on a MFT lens is perfectly sharp and fine for real world use.

As is ƒ8 on APS-c and ƒ11 on FF. They are all past the diffraction limit for that specific sensor, but still quite useable. The amount of lw/ph due to diffraction at those settings is too small to be practically significant.

[Belcik]

Myself lately also looking for some pocket alternative - however Olympus TG-6 looks tempting with possibility of upgrades to underwater photography.

[AgentL]

As is ƒ8 on APS-c and ƒ11 on FF. They are all past the diffraction limit for that specific sensor, but still quite useable. The amount of lw/ph due to diffraction at those settings is too small to be practically significant.

Yep, that's accurate, however we internet photographers can tend to get paralyzed by things with no practical significance, so I try and counter that tendency when I can!