Rating Lenses: JDM’s Rule(s) of Thumb

<p>A query in another thread led me to contemplate the rating of lenses.<br /><br />In <em>subjective</em> terms, on a scale from 0 (worst) to 10 (best), any lens with “Zeiss” engraved on it will rate 2 points higher than a lens without that word. “Planar” or “Biotar” is worth another +1.<br /><br />On the other hand, any Zeiss lens made between 1946 and 1989 that has the word “Jena” on it will have its total rating reduced by 1.<br /><br /><br />The subjective rating of any lens with Cyrillic inscriptions or the word “Industar” will be rated -2, unless it was made on a Monday or Friday, in which case it will be rated -3. <br /><br /><br>

These ratings corrections apply only to ratings compiled on the "you can see the difference" basis.</p>

<p>As an unrelated, odd, but objective fact, it has been widely noted by management that 40% of all workplace absences occur on Friday and Monday</p><div></div>

<p>If it cost less than 50, add 2. Between 50 and 500, no change. More than 500, add 2.</p>

<p>If it's got a weird name like Batis or Art, add 3.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, any Zeiss lens made between 1946 and 1989 that has the word “Jena” on it will have its total rating reduced by 1.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only -1? I would rate -1 up to 1960 and -3 after that. Nice and arbitrary.<br>

Leica or Leitz +3<br>

Canon "L" +2<br>

Any old Canon EF -2<br>

Canon FD +1<br>

Pentax Super Multicoated Takumar +1 (vs Super Takumar)<br>

Any Cyrillic -5 <br>

Any other Germanic connotation +2 (Schneider, Rodenstock, Alpa)</p>

<p>This is fun...</p>

This is one of the funniest photography threads I've seen in a good while. Good one, JDM!

 

I'm trying to figure out exactly where Spiratone lenses should be placed -- minus 3 for quality or +3 for humor & historic

value, eg their right angle mirror lens.

 

Tom M

<blockquote>

<p>Leica or Leitz +3</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only? Any Leica or Leitz will be off ANY scale! Or at least +1 or +2 above Zeiss. Except those Leitz lenses developed by Minolta or Panasonic, of course. Even though they do as well - it's all about appearances. </p>

<p>The Spiratone 400/6.3 "girlwatcher" preset gets a +1/2 automatically, but you need to boost contrast and sharpness in post processing (no kidding...stopped down to about f/11 it is a terrific lens).</p>

<p>Thanks JDM!</p>

<p>This thread will run for a while. Good topic and lead-in.</p>

<p>All of the lenses I own and use regularly were made on a Wednesday.</p>

<p>Love it. :-) Angenieux gets +5 because they're not that common and very desirable. In the context of movies, cinema lenses get +10 because a) you're making life easier for your focus puller and b) the crew has confidence that you obviously know what you're doing. For Cooke, add another +1.</p>

<p>One objection to Robin's scale: L can be +1 but FD ought to be +2.</p>

<p>Do FD and L add up?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Angenieux gets +5<br>

L can be +1 but FD ought to be +2.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Can't disagree.<br>

Sigma/Minolta/Leica/Panasonic collaborations are only +1 (if that), except for the 40mm and 90mm Rokkors for the Leica CL which are +2. Perhaps as Dieter says Leica should automatically be +10 to put them at the top.</p>

Kodak is off the chart.

<p>On a more modern note, third party SLR lenses would generally get a small minus out of the box, except for Quantaray, whose starting deduction is -5, and which should have included a hammer in the box.</p>

<p>Pre AI Nikon lenses get a +3 as long as disassembly has not allowed the pixies to get out. </p>

<p>Among older large format lenses, Goerz Dagor lenses were always considered premium, at least +1, and the Gold Dot Dagor was at least +3.</p>

<p>Among Canon FD lenses, the ones containing radioactive thorium rate from +3, if displayed or used cautiously, to -3 if carried in your pocket close to your potential gene pool.</p>

<p>For any lens available in both black and chrome, black is automatically +1 unless you own the chrome version, which reverses the rule.</p>

<p>...and any lens with an exotic features like tilt/shift, macro or defocus control is automatically +2 even when (or especially when) that feature is not being used. Any lens with a built-in hood is +1, but only when the hood is extended. Any Nikon 105mm lens of any design is +4, because Steve McCurry used one that time. Taken together, these rules mean that the Nikon 105 DC scores a remarkable +7.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do FD and L add up?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Totally dude. If only there had FD+L+thorium lenses: they would have been almost up to Zeiss or Leica (although of course this is clearly not really possible as they are Japanese, so cannot match them simply on principle).</p>

<p>For any third party lens available in multiple mounts, the Nikon version is +1, because everyone knows that Nikon cameras are cooler. All other mounts are neutral, except Leica, which is -5 because the heretics who would use non-Leica glass on a Leica body must be punished without mercy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For any third party lens available in multiple mounts, the Nikon version is +1, because</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... they're adaptable to almost any SLR system, not just mirrorless systems. :-)</p>

<p>I was browsing Ebay the other day and came across a listing in which a lens was described as Viviparous.</p>

A viviparous lens would be useful: working baby lenses from two parent lenses.

<p>Don't foget the superwide fetishists.<br>

Anything <24mm gets +1. Anything <12mm gets +2.<br>

Distance scale gives an automatic +1<br>

Any Landscape lens slower than f/2.8 gets -1, despite no-one using f/2.8 for landscape!<br>

And equiv. focal length: 85mm = 0; 82.5mm = -1 despite zero difference.<br>

More than 7 "science letters" in the name = +1 <br>

Addition of elements/groups irrespective of image quality +1 per 2 additional. </p>

Bronica P lenses. Plus 2. I used Bronica 50, 75, and 90mm PE lenses for weddings. They were rated very highly

against Leica and Leitz at the time.