What features are important when deciding on a new lens?

[mmcaleer]

When trying to decide on purchasing a new lens there are three main features that push up the price of the lens. What is most important when trying to decide on a new lens? Put the following three in order with the most important as number one. This might help when someone is purchasing a new lens.

1. fast lens
2. "L" glass
3. Image Stabilization

[Daniel Bates]

It all depends on what you're looking to shoot.

Sports? fast glass. Low light events? IS, or fast glass, depending. Landscapes? High quality elements.

You can't really generalize...

[Jim Victory]

Sorry but I don't care for your options because none of them fit my criteria.

This is what is important to me:

1. Sharpness
2. Contrast
3. Color
4. Speed

[Pascal]

1. Sharpness
2. Color & Contrast
3. Speed
4. Flare control
5. Distortion control
6. Size & weight

Canon's "L" lenses are not a criteria. They are just a marketing gimmick formulated by Canon so they can make the potential owner feel special about a red stripe on a lens. And not all "L" lenses are all that good. The canon tele primes are the exception here and only when compared to similar lenses from Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, etc.

Image stabilization is a nice feature to have, but keep in mind it can't really freeze action like a large aperture lens.

[JamesB]

cost..... im a cheap bastard

then all the other features kick in

James

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by mmcaleer

When trying to decide on purchasing a new lens there are three main features that push up the price of the lens. What is most important when trying to decide on a new lens? Put the following three in order with the most important as number one. This might help when someone is purchasing a new lens.

1. fast lens
2. "L" glass
3. Image Stabilization

Depends on what I'm wanting to use that lens for. IS for me is a nice but don't really need or use it. As for 'L' glass if i'm looking for image quaility, contrast, etc, I may well look to makers other than Canon.

You left out the most important thing to consider focal lenght which ties directly to what to you plan to use the lens for.

[JohnT]

Something else to consider...

Canon "L" lenses are more than about optics. They're about build quality and weather sealing, which many of them have. If one doesn't have a need for Canon's higher-end optics and solid build, there are other options available to serve your needs.

Don't buy into the old, tired argument that "L" lenses are just a marketing gimmick. They are very good. Not the best available, but very good nonetheless.

[venchka]

Jim & Pascal & John nailed the criteria well. Freedom from flare could be higher on the list too.

A combination of those factors combine to produce a lens's "signature" or "fingerprint". Nobody around here pays too much attention to signature. It seems to be a forgotten quality in a lens. It goes along with a lot of missing things nowadays. Things like aperture ring, distance scale, depth of field scale, etc.

As for the quality of "L" lenses: Canon was making as good or better lenses a long time before the marketing types trotted out the "L" designation to denote lenses that were built as well and performed as well as earlier lenses. Way back when the top name companies only produced one grade of lens. There were different priced lenses based on maximum aperture. However, they were all built to the same standard. Another forgotten factor.

[Pascal]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Something else to consider...

Canon "L" lenses are more than about optics. They're about build quality and weather sealing, which many of them have. If one doesn't have a need for Canon's higher-end optics and solid build, there are other options available to serve your needs.

Don't buy into the old, tired argument that "L" lenses are just a marketing gimmick. They are very good. Not the best available, but very good nonetheless.

I will partially agree - the weather sealing is the only thing that L lenses have that some other manufacturer's don't offer. How effective is a different issue. I learnt the hard way that a 1Ds Mk II and 16-35L don't take to water too well :)

But build quality is nothing special. Canon lenses actually have poorer build quality than many other lens manufacturers. Wobbly focus rings and easily broken zoom mechanism or a barrel that decides to slide out when you don't want it is typical of any lens and canon is no exception.

You buy a particular lens for it's optics first. You can always get a tamron or even a Promaster or Quantaray lens that you could use to hammer nails in with, but it's the optics that sets lenses apart.

Canon does not have what one consider's "Higher end optics". They have some good tele primes which are excellent and on par with the best. But a majority of Canon's lenses simply "suck" when compared to the top tier.

Take a critiera for instance - Resolution - Canon lenses can't resolve more than 140-160 lp/mm. Zeiss & Leica average to 290 lp/mm and go up as high as 400 lp/mm if that's any indication of what these "other" optics are capable of. Then again, you can't get print resolution of over 40-60 lp/mm so it isn't so bad :)

Think about edge-to-edge or corner-to-corner sharpness. Canon's lenses are very nice at the center. But as you go out and away from the center, the image quality gets pathetic. A good lens from Zeiss or Leica or even Nikon are far superior to what Canon has delivered on their L's.

Also, canon's lenses simply don't offer the contrast and colors these two or even Nikon lenses can.

Ever wonder why "L" lenses don't loose their value too much but a better piece of glass from Nikon might and usually does. It's canon's marketing at work here.

Another issue with overall build of the "L" is that many canon lenses use plastics along with a metal barrel assembly. Most Canon hoods are plastic. The hood on Leica's and Zeiss is metal - about the same material as the lens barrel assembly.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by venchka

Jim & Pascal & John nailed the criteria well. Freedom from flare could be higher on the list too.

A combination of those factors combine to produce a lens's "signature" or "fingerprint". Nobody around here pays too much attention to signature. It seems to be a forgotten quality in a lens. It goes along with a lot of missing things nowadays. Things like aperture ring, distance scale, depth of field scale, etc.

As for the quality of "L" lenses: Canon was making as good or better lenses a long time before the marketing types trotted out the "L" designation to denote lenses that were built as well and performed as well as earlier lenses. Way back when the top name companies only produced one grade of lens. There were different priced lenses based on maximum aperture. However, they were all built to the same standard. Another forgotten factor.

That fingerprint is important. One of the things I like about Sean Reid's reviews is he discusses the way a lens, "draws" or as you called "fingerprint."

We have become too consumed with the gee-whiz of technology that we have forgotten to look a the aesthetic qualities a lens brings to the image....

[mmcaleer]

Wow. I guess there was more than I expected when trying to find a new lens. In my other thread I was looking for a good "walk around" lens for a 1.6 crop factor body (30D). Something starting at about a 17mm with good optics. That is why I was leaning towards the "L" glass in the 17-40 f4L lens (still affordable). If there are other manufacturers that are producing as good or better optics in the same price range I would love to hear about them. My 30D is not a sealed body so that feature of the "L" glass is not as important to me. The quality of the glass is. I am just trying to replace my standard glass. Unless there is standard glass worth purchasing.

I would love to have a Ferrari but cannot afford one. I am sure the Zeiss lenses are far superior to the Canon "L" glass but I have a family that expects to be fed everyday. Go figure that. So I am on a budget. I did not want this to turn out to be a thread on "what is the best lens you can purchase".


Thanks,

Mike

[engstrom]

I have to agree with Jim's list...that is once I've narrowed down the focal length I'm looking for.

[Pascal]

For a good walk around lens, on a budget, without going overboard, the Canon 17-40mm f4L is about as good a lens as you can find for the price.
I doubt if anyone who would argue that point :)

[zeroendless]

Sharpness at wide open.......