Opinions about Lenses, Perceptions-The Positive and Negative

[Lonnie1212]

There is a YouTube photographer that I listen to frequently. He gives straight to the point advice about lenses. Most of the time I really listen to advice, because I am a hobbyist photographer and not a professional. But this evening I found myself disagreeing with his opinion. He said the Nikon 24-120 f/4 and the older 80-400 AF D lenses were both absolute crap. I have been using the 24-120 f/4 on a Nikon D610 for family reunions and pictures of my grandchildren. Have found the lens to be a perfect and dependable lens. I even use it for cityscapes at night photography. The lens is like magic.
The older 80-400 AF D lens I've used for wildlife and small bird photography. It is probably the lens that I use the most. Have found it to be moderately sharp and as long as I don't overstep the distance capabilities of the lens. It is perfectly fine for small bird pictures. It even shows the feather details with no problem.

If I were a professional portrait photographer, maybe I would see things in a different light. But since I'm a hobbyist, maybe I can get by with things that a professional cannot. But again, I find no fault with these two lenses.

We have to keep the industry going. Hobbyists and professionals are needed to make things happen.

Thank you for listening.

Lonnie

 

[Soocom1]

Personal opinions.
Use what YOU want to use!

An old argument I have stated many times.

I have seen some absolutely beautiful photographs shot with point and shoot film disposable cameras and absolute crap with a Hasselblad H4.

it's not the equipment, its the person.

 

[Jeff15]

The gear you use is only as good as the guy or gal holding it, that said my Sony RX 10 M4 helps me a great deal.......

 

[Lonnie1212]

Thank you for your input. It is good to hear the opinions of others.

 

[photoflyer]

It is all relative. I have a Tamron 18-400 super zoom and compared to my Canon 100-400 L Mark II it is junk...ok, that is too strong...not nearly as good. But I still use it with good results in certain situations and am glad to have it.

 

[petrochemist]

Listening to a single opinion on lens quality is rarely reliable. The reviewer could just have an unusually bad (or good) example of the lens. This is may be less of an issue with reviews where the lens has been supplied direct by the manufacturer for the purpose of review (as they presumably check it's reasonable first).
If the lenses have been brought second hand for a youtube review, then sample variation is an increased risk...

When we get to the situation that multiple independant reviewers all feel the lens is good/bad there's reason to think this is down to the design of the lens - but even here it could be the lens is quirky & it clicks with you in a way it doesn't to the reviewers

I've come across a few youtube channels, were I seem to disagree with significant parts of every video of theirs I've seen (I rarely watch more than 3-4 from such sources before learning to just ignore them) I suspect some are deliberately contentious to raise viewing figures, but it could simply be they don't know anything about the subject they're covering There have been a few where the presenter is clear about not knowing the subject & is just starting to explore it, strangely most of the time these are less prone to error.

 

[flyingPhoto]

I have one lens that doesnt get good reviews due to the manual focus ring BEING SMALLER THEN TYPICAL lenses of the size.

I have a seperate zoom lens that gets less then stellar reviews because it costs 80% LESS then the professional version does, although the professional version starts at f2.5 versus the f4.5 of MINE

 

[Sharpshooterr]

There is a YouTube photographer that I listen to frequently. He gives straight to the point advice about lenses. Most of the time I really listen to advice, because I am a hobbyist photographer and not a professional. But this evening I found myself disagreeing with his opinion. He said the Nikon 24-120 f/4 and the older 80-400 AF D lenses were both absolute crap. I have been using the 24-120 f/4 on a Nikon D610 for family reunions and pictures of my grandchildren. Have found the lens to be a perfect and dependable lens. I even use it for cityscapes at night photography. The lens is like magic.
The older 80-400 AF D lens I've used for wildlife and small bird photography. It is probably the lens that I use the most. Have found it to be moderately sharp and as long as I don't overstep the distance capabilities of the lens. It is perfectly fine for small bird pictures. It even shows the feather details with no problem.

If I were a professional portrait photographer, maybe I would see things in a different light. But since I'm a hobbyist, maybe I can get by with things that a professional cannot. But again, I find no fault with these two lenses.

We have to keep the industry going. Hobbyists and professionals are needed to make things happen.

Thank you for listening.

Lonnie

Lonnie, everything was hunky dory between you and your hero, then he stepped on your toes...., now it's all out war!!! LoL
I only know Canon gear and I can pretty much say with certainty that there is not ONE non-L lens that is as good as an L lens! And since I'm pretty serious about my photography, I own only L lenses BUT that does not make all other lenses trash, just not as good!
Maybe to a pro a cheap lens has a bit of strong vignetting and at one end it pin-cushions and at the other it barrels and its pretty sharp in the center but drops off in the edges. Some might consider that crap even though the aberrations can mostly all be corrected in post. It can certainly be very annoying!!!
Now about that monkey 12" back, it's the job of your gear to make your photographs better, your job is to make your photography better!!!
SS

 

[jcdeboever]

@photoflyer hit the nail on the head, compared to what? Anyway, if you like the glass, that's what's important. I would love to have a 28-70 2.8 L lens but I have a 28-80 usm version 1 lens that is fantastic and I literally bought it for $20 at a pawn shop because it was there and the focal length is useful. It doesn't get hardly any reviews other than it flares bad, etc and people can't figure out what hood to put on it or use their hand.

My favorite Nikkor lens is the 25-50 f4 AIS. It's not all that sharp and most of the reviews are not favorable if one where researching it to possibly buy it. I bought it because of a document I read about historical Nikkor lens design. Man, what a lens! At least my copy. It has a very unique render quality on film. It is stuck on my F2. I probably would not use it on a modern digital as I'm 90% certain the sensor would smash the look, would have to use it on a D2x.

I have a Canon 35-350L push pull design that has similar rendering qualities to that Nikkor. Again, I read about it in a lens research article on push pull designed lenses. Got it for cheap considering more modern, well reviewed lenses with similar focal length. Now I have one lens that I can use for outdoor events like steam tractor shows where the environment plays hell on a camera body with all the soot and smoke. I don't have to go back to my truck and change the lens and my mirror and prism stay clean.

 

[flyingPhoto]

Listening to a single opinion on lens quality is rarely reliable. The reviewer could just have an unusually bad (or good) example of the lens. This is may be less of an issue with reviews where the lens has been supplied direct by the manufacturer for the purpose of review (as they presumably check it's reasonable first).
If the lenses have been brought second hand for a youtube review, then sample variation is an increased risk...

When we get to the situation that multiple independant reviewers all feel the lens is good/bad there's reason to think this is down to the design of the lens - but even here it could be the lens is quirky & it clicks with you in a way it doesn't to the reviewers

I've come across a few youtube channels, were I seem to disagree with significant parts of every video of theirs I've seen (I rarely watch more than 3-4 from such sources before learning to just ignore them) I suspect some are deliberately contentious to raise viewing figures, but it could simply be they don't know anything about the subject they're covering There have been a few where the present is clear about not knowing the subject & is just starting to explore it, strangely most of the time these are less prone to error.

And it all depends upon what source is providing them with free goodies to use and review.....

Tamron released a 100-400 mm lens with "10x magnification" couple years ago. I ALMOST bought it based upon youtube reviews and an article done by outdoor photographer in their last paper issue magazine.

Then i went online and did massive research and discovered that it had serious issues with optical quality past 300mm, and that the camera had that focal length issue that if focused on something under perhaps 300 yards you would not get a focal length longer then 250mm despite what the lens was set on.

But at the same time, i am always hearing and reading in online articles and videos, normally by people doing paid reviews for tripods, that it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for someone to free hand a camera set to a shutter of 1/60 or slower.
i can with my big heavy lens and my lil vitomatic II

 

[ac12]

Everyone has an opinion.
If it works and does what I want it to do, I don't care about someone else's negative opinion.

- When I started out, my first Nikon lens was the little 43-86. I read and still read reports and comments about how LOUSEY that lens was. Well it wasn't to me, I loved it, and still do. I only replaced it with a 35-105, to get more zoom range, not because of IQ. I would still use it as my primary lens, on my F2.

- Same with someone running down a consumer grade super zoom, in preference to a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Well if I had a $5,000 budget and could lug the weight of both of those lenses, maybe. But I would rather take a good super zoom on vacation, than those HEAVY lenses. In fact when I travel, my heavy pro lenses stay at home.

- I shoot a reflex/mirror lens. Look at all the people with negative comments about mirror lenses. They all ignore one thing, logistics. Try lugging a 500mm refractor lens around. There is a reason those lenses were called "stove pipes." My 500 mirror fits into my standard camera bag.

- Look at all the people who are obsessed over large aperture lenses on a full frame camera, to get shallow depth of field. Well, I do NOT care about shallow DoF. In fact, usually I want MORE DoF, not less. So their PoV and opinion is completely opposite to what I want.

BTW, as was mentioned, some people are just opinionated. Their point of view is the only one that matters, and they run down anyone who has a different point of view.
Some just want more clicks on their web site, so that they can earn more money from their sponsors. So anything to get more people to click on their web site.

 

[jcdeboever]

Everyone has an opinion.
If it works and does what I want it to do, I don't care about someone else's negative opinion.

- When I started out, my first Nikon lens was the little 43-86. I read and still read reports and comments about how LOUSEY that lens was. Well it wasn't to me, I loved it, and still do. I only replaced it with a 35-105, to get more zoom range, not because of IQ. I would still use it as my primary lens, on my F2.

- Same with someone running down a consumer grade super zoom, in preference to a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Well if I had a $5,000 budget and could lug the weight of both of those lenses, maybe. But I would rather take a good super zoom on vacation, than those HEAVY lenses. In fact when I travel, my heavy pro lenses stay at home.

- I shoot a reflex/mirror lens. Look at all the people with negative comments about mirror lenses. They all ignore one thing, logistics. Try lugging a 500mm refractor lens around. There is a reason those lenses were called "stove pipes." My 500 mirror fits into my standard camera bag.

- Look at all the people who are obsessed over large aperture lenses on a full frame camera, to get shallow depth of field. Well, I do NOT care about shallow DoF. In fact, usually I want MORE DoF, not less. So their PoV and opinion is completely opposite to what I want.

BTW, as was mentioned, some people are just opinionated. Their point of view is the only one that matters, and they run down anyone who has a different point of view.
Some just want more clicks on their web site, so that they can earn more money from their sponsors. So anything to get more people to click on their web site.

I loved my 43-86, mine was great as well. Showed a lot of pics on here using that lens. Unfortunately, I did a purge of gear and it was one of the lenses. I only have 3 lenses for my Nikon F2... 25-50 AIS, 35 1.4 AIS, and a 58 f1.4 voigtlander. I hardly ever use the last 2, probably going to sell them. The 35 1.4 is the hardest lens to use, I only keep it because I want to get good with it, when you nail it, it's super but I rarely nail anything with it...frustrating.

 

[mrca]

Lonnie, what SPECIFICALLY did he say was wrong with the lens? There is more to a good lens than just sharpness and manufacturers like zeiss and leica know that. Micro contrast, color rendition, 3D separation, ie, zeiss pop, bokeh are other lens characteristics that those manufacturers consider important. Micro contrast cannot be added in post. Sharpening, color, chromatic aberration removal, can. Vignetting can be removed although I add it to nearly every image. One of my most awarded images was taken with a 24-120, the original version, that Rockwell lists as one of nikons 10 worst lenses of all time. If you are unable to see the difference in those characteristics, they don't matter to you. But from an analysis of a lens, they go to the quality of a lens for some folks. One of my most amazing lenses cost me $400 used like new and it is one of many I have that were designed in the mid 90's, the 180 2.8. I also have the 135 dc 7 elements that has incredible microcontrast for b&w and with the 105 also designed in 1994, is a bokeh king. The 180 and 135 continue to be made unchanged since 1994 for a reason. Both are auto focus but I use a zeiss 35 distagon, 9 elements, an 85 6 elements, a voigtlander 58, 7 elements manual focus because of their rendering. My medium format lenses from the 80's have only 5 elements. The rendering is amazing but they aren't coated so have to be careful with all of these for flare. I shoot lots of b&w mounting the older lenses on both digital and film cameras. Yours has 17 elements. Every element sucks up light and even with a few coated, light bounces back as well. When it gets to the sensor, the low energy shadow detail has been lost. And the glass in my zeiss lenses is lead crystal that is more efficient at transmitting light. There is a reason why when I walked into a gallery recently, looked at the b&w images on the wall and said to the older photographer, you have a leica, he smiled. But remember, folks take photos with a cell phone and if that is ok, then who is to say it isn't. But for someone seeking killer microcontrast, 3d pop, color rendition, then in many lenses, nikon has listened to the customer, who contrary to the saying, isn't always right. Hence we have lenses that homoginize the images even more than digital. Folks like me find ourselves shooting film to get away from that sterile, clinical look. Heck, I shoot 3200 speed film to get that chunky grain. Pixel peepers would have a heart attack.

 

[flyingPhoto]

As with many websites that do reviews, and youtube channels. Crappy products get excellent reviews when it means keeping the light bill paid, or sitting in the dark.

 

[mrca]

When they use links to vendors and they get paid every time you buy, there is an incentive for them to give a good review, especially on an expensive product. Some reviewers don't get kickbacks through links.