I used to love a good lens test. At first the chart and graph type made the most sense, then I moved on to more “real world use” tests. Now I tend to ignore them in favour of actually getting to know it.
I once thought that the very statement “use it and get to know it” was a bit of a cop-out. It did not address the realities of good, better, best or even the simpler good or bad, but I was wrong.
All modern lenses are pretty good and so were most older ones. Any major manufacturer from the 1960’s on made decent glass. Really crappy Chinese rip-off stuff was poor, later stuff, surprisingly good. Good and bad really needs to be reserved for new and functioning or old/damaged/mould ravaged or simple too old to include design parameters that are needed, such as lens coatings.
It stuck me that over 30+ years of photography, the only lenses I have had that were short of “professionally useable” were either broken (one or two and clearly so), very poorly calibrated and not identified as such (only one I am sure of and it was fine as a wide on film) or designed to be poor (plastic “toy” lenses).
We are talking about 100’s of good, useable lenses (to my shame).
Taken with a $100 40-150 kit lens. The sharpness defies scrutiny even at pixel level, the Bokeh is distinctive (subjective) and the colours punchy after a little post. Did I get the image I was after? Yup.
Have I stressed in the past over the merits of sample “A” to sample “B” of the same glass? More times than I care to admit to. I actually decided to never again buy a lens when I was not working at a shop, so I could try multiple samples and pick the best. You know, every time I did that, I came away fishing for a clear message. I often just ended up taking the one with tighter build, better mount fit or a perceived advantage in one single image over others, when in reality, I was likely to blame for any variance. I even remember picking one simple because the serial number had a coincidentally harmonious value! Talk about looking for signs and portents.
Deep seated suspicions about new lenses have always, with almost no exceptions, had no foundation of valid complaint. My 300 and 8-18 were bought with the mind set of a “it only has to please clients” buyer, both proving themselves superior samples after only a few uses.
“A lens is as good as the best image it takes” and “the fool who looks for trouble invariably finds it” are two mantras that work in opposite directions, but are both valid.
Video has re-invigorated my lust for knowledge, which has highlighted for me how little I have cared about lens test sites and opinions since working. In video especially I am more interested in character and handling.
My own glass is good and that is all I need to know.
This is where the “get to know your lens” bit comes in though and I have a much better handle on it than before.
If you use a lens for a while, you will get to know its strengths and ignore or avoid its weaknesses. Does an Olympic sprinter sit around wistfully lamenting their lack of Shot-put or climbing strength? No they don’t. They use what they do well, to do the best they can at their best event.
This means for me a different way of “ranking” my lenses.
For example;
17mm f1.8 has great contrast for tough light, excellent long transition Bokeh and handles well. This is the seat of your pants street lens. My EF 28mm 1.8 was a clone of this, with very similar characteristics and just as many detractors. This lens also shares the same palette as the kit 40-150.
Bit of a lighting nightmare. The 25 would have added glow, the 17 tamed it.
25mm f1.8 is slightly wider than a 50mm equivalent (about 45mm), has gorgeous “modern” Bokeh and lush, glowacious* highlights. It positively sparkles and feels the most “stable” of the four primes. There was a time I did not like or overly trust it. How times change. In Canon, this is like my 35 f1.4L performed on a crop frame camera. This lens has similar characteristics to my 75-300 zoom.
45mm f1.8 is reliably stable, but with added character. It is more serious than the 25mm, less forgiving than the 17, with Bokeh that intrigues, but never jangles. My Canon EF 200 f2.8 L shared these qualities, although the bokeh was even a little more playful.
75mm f1.8 is “Mr Perfecto”. Too good to be true, it adds in the glow of the 25mm to the richness of the 17 and 45mm’s for an all too pleased with itself ability to impress. Of the four, it is the most predictable and “same-ish”, so a sharp, but very specific tool. The lens I most appreciated in Canon was my 135 f2L. This is same-same, but lighter, cheaper, faster and effectively longer.
Which has the best quality?
Don’t care. I did once and far too much, but I can honestly say now, I pick them up as tools for a job, based only on their strengths, with little to no thought about their supposed weaknesses.
Hero portrait of an individual, low light candids or indoor sports lens = 75mm
Fast moving groups indoors, street or video on the move = 17mm
Small groups at a busy event, a “one lens” day, low light shots = 25mm
Edgy portraits or abstracts, street grabs in close, gritty portraits = 45mm
*A term coined by one of the Western brothers.
.