Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/05/11[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
On 5/11/06, Mark Langer <email@example.com> wrote: > I have another naieve question -- what constitutes the "best"? It seems to > me that there is no one "best" lens unless you make clear the criteria that > one uses to determine what "best" means. Value for money? Sheer optical > performance? Do compactness, balance when mounted on the camera, speed, > ability to mount on both a screwmount and bayonet body, etc. matter in this > evaluation? Depending on the criteria, I could opt for any one of a number > of lenses to suggest, even with the limitation of only speaking of ones I > have used personally. You're taking this kind of seriously aren't you. Well, to be fair. Jeffery was pretty explicit about his criteria ---- down here ---- is really designed to be used under limited light and it is just too darned big, expensive, and heavy to be a "best" of all worlds. Take into account: Sharpness (a subjective perception) Contrast Bokeh Easy of use (yeah, I guess that means weight and size) Contrast Versatility Affordability (keep in mind that I'm talking to LUGers who could afford the body...they have enough to buy this lens, but who spend $3,800 if you can buy the best all-around 50 for less?) Use with today's films, not classic films Intangibles I have a pretty good idea of what most folks would say, but wondered if I am right. If the Department of Homeland Security dictated that a photographer could have only one lens, a 50 (so you couldn't take pictures of places you planned to attack), what would it be? Oh, and it has to be Leica.