MIng Thein's Ultimate Lens List

[Michael Erlewine]

Worth a look.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/11/16/the-ultimate-lens-list-nov-2016-1/#more-13507

[atpaula]

Thank you for sharing.
The 70-200mm f/4 is always on one of my cameras for the trips. The f/2.8 is a disappointment.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

It is interesting. Thanks for posting the link.

He mentions the 24 PC's field curvature to be useful in urban environments ... I guess that may be true for getting flat foreground (floor, ceiling) more in focus at the same time as the facade or wall in the background is. But it makes harder to get a large facade all sharp from bottom to top. I have sometimes wondered about Nikon's thinking on this. Now I can see I'm not the only one who felt it might have been intentional. Some time ago I noticed as I was photographing a medieval church and graveyard that I had problems getting the whole facade sharp but the foreground was sharper than it ought to have been given that I was focusing on the church. Then I started to think about field curvature as a possibly intentional characteristic. The 19mm PC is advertised to be flat field so I look forward to having that choice, although painfully expensive. I think for me a flat field lens would be easier to work with.

Ming seems to like the 24-124/4 Nikkor, which I find a lens that is intolerable. I know it is technically better (sharper) than extended range normal zooms of the past (such as the 28-105 Nikkor) but there is something I do not like about the results: somehow the flare characteristics and illumination make the images look quite often "unphysical" to my brain, i.e it doesn't look "right" in terms of light and shadow. Also the images sometimes look smeared. I know several people who like this lens but I can't bring myself to tolerate it let alone "like". I am on my second copy of it which seems similar to the first but it seems built better; the front of the first copy was wobbly and the focusing caused the image to jiggle laterally as the direction of focusing changed. In my current copy there is no mechanical  play or wobble and seems better constructed but I don't like the results any better than the first one. The images leave my eyes and brain uneasy.

I really like Nikon's 70-200/4G, it gives very pleasing images at f/4 and is nicely built and enjoyable to use and carry. I find the images more pleasing than those from the VR 70-200/2.8G II but sometimes need the larger aperture.

I find this kind of accounts such as Ming's interesting because they are based on real world use and subjective perceptions of the quality. Even when I agree with him on some things and disagree on others.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Such compilations really are relevant mainly to the photographer who compiled the list in the first place. I find it a waste of time to discuss these in detail. Our interests and requirements all differ.


That being said, the 24/3.5 PC has a hidden virtue, viz. it can do IR without the nasty hot spot most other 24 mm Nikkors exhibit.

[atpaula]

I know he talks about image quality only, but if someone tells me to choose only 2 lenses to use from now on I would definitely choose the 70-200mm f/4G and the 16-35mm f/4G.

[bjornthun]

There are so many lenses that could enter a favoutite list, so I think it's a hopeless task to make anything even approaching canonical.

[Michael Erlewine]

The list just is what it is.

I couldn’t agree more about the Zeiss Otus lenses, of which I have all of them plus the 135mm APO. The 55mm is incredible, and although it gets short shrift, the Otus 28mm for landscape work is just wonderful. I hear that the next Otus will be 100mm, and I'm not sure I need that, unless it is a macro. My first of this group was the 135mm APO, which blew my mind. And I use the 55mm and 135mm for close-up work.

I also love the Voigtlander 180mm APO, but also value and use the 125mm APO-Lanthar and the first version of the 90mm APO in that series. It was just a fun read because I like lenses and seeing what others like.

[Akira]

There are so many lenses that could enter a favoutite list, so I think it's a hopeless task to make anything even approaching canonical.

Bjørn, I'm floored by your sense of play on words!   

[Nick Scavone]

I find Bjorn's first comment ironic because I and so many others revere his lens reviews and his best of the best. Yes, it is true that mileage varies (and as I mature in my photography I change my views of what lenses I value for sure), but these types of subjective evaluations matter greatly to newbies and even to me after all this time.

 I'd love to see an updated Bjorn's best of the best -- I bet many of you would too.

Cheers,

Nick

[Moritat]

After reading some positive reviews on the Zeiss 28mm f2, it was actually Ming's review which convinced me to buy one.

[pluton]

I have fond memories of the Zeiss 85/2.8 Sonnar made for the Contax RTS.  On film, of course. The nice thing about that 85mm lens was it's pocketable size:  about the size of a manual focus 50mm f/1.8 lens, lengthened by about 2 cm.

[richardHaw]

I also made one almost 10 years ago in multiply.com when it was still a thing, it is now dead, sadly.

maybe I should make one again soon? I am not expert but I can give a quick commentary.

Bjorn's list (and Thom's site & throughthefmount.com) has always been my trusted sources.

[BEZ]

"The ultimate lens list, at Nov 2016 (part I)"   Well none of my "ultimate" lenses got listed  ...I can only hope for more luck in part 2 

[Frank Fremerey]

I love it when he says the 1.8/85G flares so nicely!!!

[Ethan]

There is no ultimate lens and there are no ultimate lenses.

Lenses evaluation is split in two:

1- Technical (mechanical)
2- Subjective (personal)

What is good for you today might not be valid for tomorrow and what is good for your neighbour might be useless for you.

Having said that. I do appreciate that people need to make a living by sustaining blurbs to their website and blogs which is either for a commercial pursuit or personal.

What is far from surprising is the fact that no full EXIF information is available on the featured images.
Does anyone still wonders why?

Ming Thein images are heavily processed to the extent that it is highly doubtful to any photographer's eye that it is straight out of the camera.

These lenses are what makes him tick. Good for him.