@@bradl2636 Voigtländer 2/28 VM Ultron. Notorious for focus shift when stopping down. Some of their earlier ultrawides had terrible corner performance on Sony FF MILCs due to their thick sensor filter stack. In any case, Cosina does not make AF, long telephotos or zooms the last time I checked. This automatically eliminates them as any serious contender as a maker of "best lenses" for a great number of people. The real issue is people love to choose a "best" and then mythologize the rest.
@@sandb1867 Can’t say my copy of the 2/28 VM has that problem but I’m presently half a planet away from where it’s located because my government is full of bed wetting fascists so will check it when we are reunited. I don’t own any current E Mount Voigtlanders and haven’t heard those comments about ultrawides. No zooms point taken but is there any zoom out there that stands out over a spray of range primes? As for telephoto my VF 125mm and 180mm and the new 90mm APO are pretty impressive.
Thanks Matti! As I have some background at optics and I can say that modern lenses in the middle price category utilize maximum possible spatial resolution limited by diffraction at about 90-95% on the center of the field. The difference between middle range and top lenses in handling flares and chromatic aberrations. Cheap and middle prices lenses correct longitudinal CA only in focused plane while top lenses have minimal CA in out of focus areas too. Top lenses yields proper color rendering in out of focus areas, cheap lenses often disperse colors making picture dirty. Also cheap lenses flare resistant only if source of light on the center, top lenses tolerate source of light on the corners. So I have no idea how opticalimits compare lenses as resolution is one of aspects and not most crucial concerning modern optics.
@@rickkoloian4179 As I know software compensate only distortion and vignetting. For some lenses software can compensate chromatic aberration but at the expense of resolution.
@@sstansm7f Thanks you may want to check out DxO Photolab, ruclips.net/video/yC-xbeoH19w/видео.html, which can simultaneously correct chromatic aberration & sharpness.
That's a very interesting topic, Matti. I know it wasn't the question you were asking, but I'd like to see somebody do the same comparison with third party lens manufacturers. 😊
The thing is: better in what regard? A good upload, as it poses the philosophical question. How does its IBIS reduce shake with the lens? Etc. I prefer fast focussing lenses with really soft corners for portraits. I don't care about chromatic aberration. I grew up with manual focus, so what. I prefer fast aperture lenses for night and event photography, but don't care when it comes to video on CDAF cameras. Every tool has it's place, and there is, of course, no better or worse, unless one hasn't got a plan. Cheers, enjoy the spring in Helsinki!
In my amateur experience, most consumer lenses in the last 5 years or more are very capable. The only lenses I just couldn't learn to love and therefore got rid of (three) were all early models from 10 or more years ago. Subsequent models of two of those lenses are very good. That leaves just one: the Olympus 17mm f2.8 pancake. I have the 1.8 version (very good), but it's not a pancake. If they made a new version of the 2.8 pancake, I'd get it in a heartbeat.
Since I am an enthusiast level hobbyist my take on buying lenses is very limited. Never-the-less, when I look at a camera system I look at the affordability of the lens options. Many people disregard KIT lenses but the 12-60mm Leica for my Panasonic G9 and the XF16-80mm for my X-T4 are more than capable for me. I usually add a longer zoom lens for birding, buying the XC50-230 for my X-T4 and Panasonic 100-300mm for my G9. Very inexpensive but the quality is good even though many purists snub them. Add some deft post-processing magic and you are good to go. I am definitely not into buying numerous lenses (i.e. a primes library) as a hobbyist but for pros I understand. I'd say even many current "mediocre" lenses can make for good photos if you understand their limitations. I am not into paying $1,000+ for lenses that have diminishing bang for the buck and would most certainly put me into the family dog-house/hoosegow.
There's a lot of in-camera correction going on with modern lenses. The difference between an uncorrected Raw file, and the jpeg for viewing is remarkable in sharpness and distortion. Lenses tend to be ultra sharp, or "soft", but few manage to be both. Biotar designs are a good compromise, and cinema lenses achieve this. I suspect all manufacturers know how to make sharp lenses with beautiful rendering in parfocal designs, but the cost puts them out of reach of the mass market.
Thanks for presenting yet another lens evaluation website, and the opportunity to drown in grief when we discover that our favorite lenses are “not so good!” I agree with you that in the end, there really is no winner. Such comparisons, which I must admit I am addicted to, are similar to what audiophiles participate in … and with the same failing: in my experience, many audio audiophiles spend more time testing and comparing than actually listening to music, especially new music. I had to smile at the rating of the Leica 50mm f/.95 evaluation. Of course it was going to lose on price/performance; I will admit that I won’t spend that kind of money on a lens, but I have a friend who owns one, ascribes almost magical properties to it, and takes gorgeous photos with it. Better than my “nifty 50?” Who cares: his photos are still gorgeous.
I used optical limits to assess manufacturers lenses, dxomark to assess sensors, then looked at prices. Prices or as they call it in computing terms bang per buck is quite revealing. It led to me ditching Canon APS-C and moving to MFT by my reckoning that's saved me around $15,000 on my set up compared to FF manufacturers, and I get better results for the type of photography I do.
Slight thing - the lenses are dedicated to particular systems, so the results are as only good as the back allows. Opticallimits were a little naughty only testing MFT on 16Mp, and for example testing the PL100-400 on the E-M5ii. It's a nice camera, I have one, but it does not do this lens justice. Whilst MFT are supposed to be cross-platform, they're not quite. You yourself have tested this lens cross-platform. Some of the oldest MFT lenses were ported from 4/3, they should be excluded along with the earlier "Mark 1" versions as many of the early ones have been improved and the newest ones are better. Olympus have three ranges of lenses and then Panasonic have Leica. I cannot speak about the other brands as I don't use them but Pentax were left out
To me averaging overall lens quality makes only sense if you try to choose a system but you mixed different mount lenses so its not helpful in that regard. My simple lens quality rule: you get what you pay for independent of manufacturer. BUT lenses perform better on larger sensors in terms of detail (see MTf lp/ih). Also Id like to disagree on the general statement on old (SLR) lenses, as I have found they sometimes are sharper across the frame when stopped down (usually f8) compared to similar modern lenses. It's only true that at max aperture modern lenses generally perform better, which is also where they get measured on an optical bench.
Most lenses that were designed 40-50 years ago had 40 pair of lines per millimetre as a bench mark now most lenses for digital cameras have 60 lpm (Line Pair MM) as a reference and even above (both recent Leica APO M (35 and 50 mm) are over 80. So yes you can definitely expect a difference in resolution. "Lenses perform better on a larger sensor is a misconception, in fact it is exactly the opposite that happens. The same lens used on an APS-C camera and a FF one will perform better on the APS-C sensor simply because the portion of the light circle recorded is closer to the center. Now that lenses for FF cameras might be better designed (and more expensive), that happens simply because they address the professional market.
Lens tests are based on measuring the physical characteristics of lenses, what else. They cannot measure the "look" of pictures you get with a lens. This is much more subjective, and also depends on the purpose of your photography. There are no "good" or "bad" lenses in this sense. Some people say the plastic lens of a Holga is great for them, others love the Canon 50mm 1.2, which costs about 40 times as much as the whole Holga camera, and some say Leica lenses are worth every cent of their price, although they cost 5 times as much as this "overpriced" Canon lens. So in the end you have to decide, which lenses are "best" for you. Remember that lenses last forever if you treat them well.
Olympus / OM, Fuji and Leica have a better optical quality in my opinion. Please don’t confuse optical quality with quality of the results after in camera process and with the use of newer sensors. But anyway… pointless!
Opinions are just that, opinions. I have run tests comparing raw files (Canon, Fuji, Leica, Nikon, Sigma, TTArtisan, Voigtlander...) using fixed focal (prime) lenses. The results I got were very close even at the widest aperture. Just slight differences in the corners...(except for the Classic Voitglanders and the somewhat "famous" summicron 35, King odf Bokeh that I would not use for details in the corners at full aperture).
As you suggest in this video, each manufacturer produces such a broad range of lenses that ranking them based on "average" quality doesn't provide much information. Perhaps ranking manufacturers based on the best lenses they produce would yield more interesting results?
@@mattisulanto That is a good question. Perhaps one could compare lenses that manufacturers market as their best lenses? For example, Canon has L series lenses, Olympus pro lenses etc. Then you could compare these lenses at specific focal lengths like, say, 50mm FF equivalent. That said, the best lenses and even many consumer lenses these days are so good, that lens quality rankings don't matter much to me.
An interesting attempt at lens comparison which shows little difference between the big players. I had a quick look at the lens test site and I agree their reviews are very readable but I did notice for Canon RF anyway that they have yet to test some of the more affordable 4L lens like the 70-200 which was a popular choice for many photographers in the past. I think I would have been much happier and the results more statistical accurate if you had restricted your examination to the last ten years of manufacture. Including old lens from long established players like Canon and Nikon probably isn’t fair when you include the relatively new kid on the block Sony.
Thanks for attempting to be quantitative and I agree with your overall conclusion (having owned lenses for most of the mentioned systems), however there are serious weaknesses with taking this approach. Firstly, in all the years I've read PZ/OL's reviews, it has consistently given MTF the greatest weight in rating performance. Not everyone would agree with this weighting. Furthermore, PZ/OL has always relied upon the few cameras (and therefore sensors) to perform MTF testing. Not only does this mean there was no common test bench for all these lenses but also several lenses were tested with low resolution sensors. Finally, I believe PZ/OL ratings are relative; if lens X got 4 stars and now lens Y tests better than X, how can Y possibly get a lower rating? Well there are good reasons why a sharper lens might deserve a lower rating.
What is the definition of “best” or “better”? For me, the *best* lens is one that I use the most, which means an equivalent field of view of ~40mm on 35mm film/sensor size … for most, but not all situations. My OM Zuiko 28/2.8 on Fuji AP-C gave me results I absolutely loved. My 40mm/2 Hexanon AR is outstanding on 35mm film. And for what it’s worth, how about Zeiss and Leica?!?! For me, technical testing is of limited usefulness.
@@sstansm7f I have almost no experience with Nikkor lenses for 35mm SLR, and not the 28. I did really like the 50/1.4 non-AI but never got along with any of the Nikkormat bodies I’ve tried. I do have the 75/4.5 SW for my 4x5 - it’s great.
on the paper without own experience, it is clearly cosina. cosina was a camera manufacturer in the past, but it meets the criteria 😃. otherwise it would be sigma thanks to huge range of lenses (also high end included).
Unfortunately optical limits have only tested 1 Nikon Z lens and this pretty much makes the exercise a waste of time. You sort of make this point yourself and I agree with your conclusions. I do think the current Nikon z lenses are fantastic and they get a 4 + * review without exception. That’s not to say that there aren’t great offerings from all the other manufacturers. Fujifilm GF lenses also all seem to get consistently good reviews.
Looking at test results is little meaningful to me. Luckily I didn't trust the many good test results of a lens I was about to purchase some months ago. It simply didn't fit my expectations and the look didn't please me. So 5 start rating but not my lens. But an interesting approach Matti to simply average lens ratings. The result shows for me more the bias or non bias of the internet page you were using as reference than saying anything about the lenses
Zeiss have made some cameras, but they are not really a camera manufacturer. Leica is well known, but they are not really a major camera manufacturer if you look at their market share. It's also difficult to find enough Leica lens test results.
If you go to OpticalLimits site you can easily see that there are not enough tested lenses to make any conclusions. Leica also has a big reputation, but is a fairly small camera/lens manufacturer.
I still compare 50mm equivalent lenses to the Leica 50mm APO. Which was my favorite for everyday use. Nothing against the Noctilux or Canon Dream Lenses or faster lenses; The APO had the look I liked. I am not sure if other people liked also or not. It was me best earner when I did stock photography. But then since it was my favorite I may have used it more and biased that.
I use leica glass and without doubt they do perform better. Whether you can justify the price difference is down to personal choice It's equivalent to comparing Britool tools to a cheaper manufacturer.. they both do the same job. Remember the quote by Rolls Royce... People soon forget the price, but always remember the quality
Right now Sony with the GM Lenses, though Voigtländer´s APO-LANTHAR are at least as good as GM or better, I like the Voigtländer APO-LANTHAR Lenses much more then GM lenses. (I will not mention L.... lenses, because those are much too over priced !).
Although I appreciate the effort that went into this comparison, I think it's not very interesting to know what camera brand makes the best lenses. Those lenses are typically for their own cameras, and I don't think many people will switch systems just for the lenses.
Thanks for your thoughts. I think lenses are the reason to choose the system. If a system does not have the lenses you need or want or like, why would you choose that system?
@@mattisulanto That's true, but then you'd better make a comparison about "which system has the best lenses available". Because then you would take into consideration third party lenses as well. Personally I chose to stay at Canon cameras - not (only) because they make the L lenses but because there are many very good third party lenses available from Sigma, for instance.
Oh Matti! In my opinion this wasn't a good idea. I like photozone since a very long time. But they don't reach so wide. There are so many lenses which are not tested. This is not a good source for the answer which camera manufacturer is the best.
Sorry but this is quite confusing to watch. You provided some brand names and scores without showing what they mean or how the scores were created. You mentioned lens design without showing any diagrams. It also wasn't clear which period you are comparing them on: Are you ranking the manufacturers on the basis of their entire history? You also didn't even mention specific lenses. I am afraid I learned very little from this.
What about the obvious choice, Leica (or did you include "Pana-Leica" glass)?! They certainly don't have any "mediocre" lenses! Also, lenses can't be properly judged by the numbers--it's the look that matters and things like MFT charts can't show that. The world is also larger than so-called "FF" but obviously you had to limit your testing to keep the task manageable (thanks for taking the time and trouble). Your conclusion that there really isn't that much difference between the glass from the OEMs you tested is correct--yet another example of how gear really doesn't matter much unless you have a very particular niche requirement. Next to the photographer, glass is the most important part of the system, so I'd steer clear of cheap lenses, but I've never had a problem with any "pro" lens--it really comes down to personal preference (if one can even tell the difference) and what ecosystem best fits your needs.
@@mattisulanto Maybe the ZX1 isn't really a camera in your opinion but Zeiss always were camera manufacturers and have that experience in-house. Their lenses are exceptional and have a certain "look" that no amount of data analysing can describe. My opinion is based on personal experience and usage. I think that is the only way comparisons can be made and the results will always be based on personal preferences.
@@mattisulanto Yes although they have manufactured all the lenses for Hasselblad cameras, a brand that does not manufacture lenses. Their 35 mm lenses are not to be dismissed for a serious study.
Another click bait video to try to generate some income from a biased interpretation of the results of a site testing lenses. A 7 minute video with no real new information just obvious facts and tired clichés 🤔🤭
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
Simple answer... best lens is the one you can afford and you got it on you while doing photos 😂
In my book the best lens manufacturer in 2022 is pretty clear cut… Cosina. The contemporary Voigtlander branded lenses are killing it.
You're ignoring the weak lenses they also put out. Actually Sony's latest lenses are really killing it.
@@sandb1867 Name one.
@@bradl2636 Voigtländer 2/28 VM Ultron. Notorious for focus shift when stopping down. Some of their earlier ultrawides had terrible corner performance on Sony FF MILCs due to their thick sensor filter stack. In any case, Cosina does not make AF, long telephotos or zooms the last time I checked. This automatically eliminates them as any serious contender as a maker of "best lenses" for a great number of people. The real issue is people love to choose a "best" and then mythologize the rest.
@@sandb1867 Can’t say my copy of the 2/28 VM has that problem but I’m presently half a planet away from where it’s located because my government is full of bed wetting fascists so will check it when we are reunited. I don’t own any current E Mount Voigtlanders and haven’t heard those comments about ultrawides. No zooms point taken but is there any zoom out there that stands out over a spray of range primes? As for telephoto my VF 125mm and 180mm and the new 90mm APO are pretty impressive.
To which lenses have you compared your Voigtlander lenses. All Canon, Nikon, Leica, Sigma... I doubt it.
Thanks Matti! As I have some background at optics and I can say that modern lenses in the middle price category utilize maximum possible spatial resolution limited by diffraction at about 90-95% on the center of the field. The difference between middle range and top lenses in handling flares and chromatic aberrations. Cheap and middle prices lenses correct longitudinal CA only in focused plane while top lenses have minimal CA in out of focus areas too. Top lenses yields proper color rendering in out of focus areas, cheap lenses often disperse colors making picture dirty. Also cheap lenses flare resistant only if source of light on the center, top lenses tolerate source of light on the corners. So I have no idea how opticalimits compare lenses as resolution is one of aspects and not most crucial concerning modern optics.
Thanks for sharing.
Understood but do not any of the post processing softwares, open source or at cost, do lens correction as a basic edit of RAW files?
@@rickkoloian4179 As I know software compensate only distortion and vignetting. For some lenses software can compensate chromatic aberration but at the expense of resolution.
@@sstansm7f Thanks you may want to check out DxO Photolab, ruclips.net/video/yC-xbeoH19w/видео.html, which can simultaneously correct chromatic aberration & sharpness.
I would love to see a series based on this video comparing only pro series lenses, only entry level lenses, and only lenses made in the last 4 years.
Me too, I'd love to see that😀
Thank you for this thorough review and the work you put in to this. It was very fair and unbiased as usual.
Thanks.
Excellent video 😊!
Thanks for the visit.
That's a very interesting topic, Matti.
I know it wasn't the question you were asking, but I'd like to see somebody do the same comparison with third party lens manufacturers. 😊
Hey, even you can do that😀
The thing is: better in what regard?
A good upload, as it poses the philosophical question.
How does its IBIS reduce shake with the lens? Etc.
I prefer fast focussing lenses with really soft corners for portraits. I don't care about chromatic aberration. I grew up with manual focus, so what. I prefer fast aperture lenses for night and event photography, but don't care when it comes to video on CDAF cameras.
Every tool has it's place, and there is, of course, no better or worse, unless one hasn't got a plan.
Cheers, enjoy the spring in Helsinki!
Thanks for sharing.
In my amateur experience, most consumer lenses in the last 5 years or more are very capable. The only lenses I just couldn't learn to love and therefore got rid of (three) were all early models from 10 or more years ago. Subsequent models of two of those lenses are very good. That leaves just one: the Olympus 17mm f2.8 pancake. I have the 1.8 version (very good), but it's not a pancake. If they made a new version of the 2.8 pancake, I'd get it in a heartbeat.
Thanks for sharing.
Since I am an enthusiast level hobbyist my take on buying lenses is very limited. Never-the-less, when I look at a camera system I look at the affordability of the lens options. Many people disregard KIT lenses but the 12-60mm Leica for my Panasonic G9 and the XF16-80mm for my X-T4 are more than capable for me. I usually add a longer zoom lens for birding, buying the XC50-230 for my X-T4 and Panasonic 100-300mm for my G9. Very inexpensive but the quality is good even though many purists snub them. Add some deft post-processing magic and you are good to go. I am definitely not into buying numerous lenses (i.e. a primes library) as a hobbyist but for pros I understand. I'd say even many current "mediocre" lenses can make for good photos if you understand their limitations. I am not into paying $1,000+ for lenses that have diminishing bang for the buck and would most certainly put me into the family dog-house/hoosegow.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the work you put in.
Thanks for watching😀
There's a lot of in-camera correction going on with modern lenses. The difference between an uncorrected Raw file, and the jpeg for viewing is remarkable in sharpness and distortion. Lenses tend to be ultra sharp, or "soft", but few manage to be both. Biotar designs are a good compromise, and cinema lenses achieve this. I suspect all manufacturers know how to make sharp lenses with beautiful rendering in parfocal designs, but the cost puts them out of reach of the mass market.
Thanks for your opinion.
DXOmark is the best source for lens quality
Thanks.
My favorite lenses:
Nikon 85mm F1.8
Panasonic 30mm F2.8, 14-140mm F3.5
Sigma 105mm F2.8
Thanks for sharing.
I figured the quality would be fairly close between lenses, but not that close.
Thanks for presenting yet another lens evaluation website, and the opportunity to drown in grief when we discover that our favorite lenses are “not so good!” I agree with you that in the end, there really is no winner. Such comparisons, which I must admit I am addicted to, are similar to what audiophiles participate in … and with the same failing: in my experience, many audio audiophiles spend more time testing and comparing than actually listening to music, especially new music. I had to smile at the rating of the Leica 50mm f/.95 evaluation. Of course it was going to lose on price/performance; I will admit that I won’t spend that kind of money on a lens, but I have a friend who owns one, ascribes almost magical properties to it, and takes gorgeous photos with it. Better than my “nifty 50?” Who cares: his photos are still gorgeous.
Thanks. Don't spend too much time on that site😀
I used optical limits to assess manufacturers lenses, dxomark to assess sensors, then looked at prices. Prices or as they call it in computing terms bang per buck is quite revealing. It led to me ditching Canon APS-C and moving to MFT by my reckoning that's saved me around $15,000 on my set up compared to FF manufacturers, and I get better results for the type of photography I do.
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you very much. It must have cost you some time. I appreciate your efforts!😊🤙👏
My pleasure 😊
Slight thing - the lenses are dedicated to particular systems, so the results are as only good as the back allows.
Opticallimits were a little naughty only testing MFT on 16Mp, and for example testing the PL100-400 on the E-M5ii. It's a nice camera, I have one, but it does not do this lens justice. Whilst MFT are supposed to be cross-platform, they're not quite. You yourself have tested this lens cross-platform.
Some of the oldest MFT lenses were ported from 4/3, they should be excluded along with the earlier "Mark 1" versions as many of the early ones have been improved and the newest ones are better.
Olympus have three ranges of lenses and then Panasonic have Leica.
I cannot speak about the other brands as I don't use them but Pentax were left out
Thanks for sharing.
To me averaging overall lens quality makes only sense if you try to choose a system but you mixed different mount lenses so its not helpful in that regard.
My simple lens quality rule: you get what you pay for independent of manufacturer. BUT lenses perform better on larger sensors in terms of detail (see MTf lp/ih).
Also Id like to disagree on the general statement on old (SLR) lenses, as I have found they sometimes are sharper across the frame when stopped down (usually f8) compared to similar modern lenses. It's only true that at max aperture modern lenses generally perform better, which is also where they get measured on an optical bench.
Thanks for sharing.
Most lenses that were designed 40-50 years ago had 40 pair of lines per millimetre as a bench mark now most lenses for digital cameras have 60 lpm (Line Pair MM) as a reference and even above (both recent Leica APO M (35 and 50 mm) are over 80. So yes you can definitely expect a difference in resolution. "Lenses perform better on a larger sensor is a misconception, in fact it is exactly the opposite that happens. The same lens used on an APS-C camera and a FF one will perform better on the APS-C sensor simply because the portion of the light circle recorded is closer to the center. Now that lenses for FF cameras might be better designed (and more expensive), that happens simply because they address the professional market.
Lens tests are based on measuring the physical characteristics of lenses, what else. They cannot measure the "look" of pictures you get with a lens. This is much more subjective, and also depends on the purpose of your photography. There are no "good" or "bad" lenses in this sense. Some people say the plastic lens of a Holga is great for them, others love the Canon 50mm 1.2, which costs about 40 times as much as the whole Holga camera, and some say Leica lenses are worth every cent of their price, although they cost 5 times as much as this "overpriced" Canon lens. So in the end you have to decide, which lenses are "best" for you. Remember that lenses last forever if you treat them well.
Thanks for sharing.
Agreed although I can make a crappy image out of any image obtained from a top lens, but I cannot make a well-defined image from a plastic lens, so...
Olympus / OM, Fuji and Leica have a better optical quality in my opinion. Please don’t confuse optical quality with quality of the results after in camera process and with the use of newer sensors. But anyway… pointless!
Thanks for you opinion.
Opinions are just that, opinions. I have run tests comparing raw files (Canon, Fuji, Leica, Nikon, Sigma, TTArtisan, Voigtlander...) using fixed focal (prime) lenses. The results I got were very close even at the widest aperture. Just slight differences in the corners...(except for the Classic Voitglanders and the somewhat "famous" summicron 35, King odf Bokeh that I would not use for details in the corners at full aperture).
As you suggest in this video, each manufacturer produces such a broad range of lenses that ranking them based on "average" quality doesn't provide much information. Perhaps ranking manufacturers based on the best lenses they produce would yield more interesting results?
How would you define the best lenses?
@@mattisulanto That is a good question. Perhaps one could compare lenses that manufacturers market as their best lenses? For example, Canon has L series lenses, Olympus pro lenses etc. Then you could compare these lenses at specific focal lengths like, say, 50mm FF equivalent. That said, the best lenses and even many consumer lenses these days are so good, that lens quality rankings don't matter much to me.
An interesting attempt at lens comparison which shows little difference between the big players. I had a quick look at the lens test site and I agree their reviews are very readable but I did notice for Canon RF anyway that they have yet to test some of the more affordable 4L lens like the 70-200 which was a popular choice for many photographers in the past. I think I would have been much happier and the results more statistical accurate if you had restricted your examination to the last ten years of manufacture. Including old lens from long established players like Canon and Nikon probably isn’t fair when you include the relatively new kid on the block Sony.
Thanks for sharing. There would have been many ways to do this, of course.
Thanks for attempting to be quantitative and I agree with your overall conclusion (having owned lenses for most of the mentioned systems), however there are serious weaknesses with taking this approach. Firstly, in all the years I've read PZ/OL's reviews, it has consistently given MTF the greatest weight in rating performance. Not everyone would agree with this weighting. Furthermore, PZ/OL has always relied upon the few cameras (and therefore sensors) to perform MTF testing. Not only does this mean there was no common test bench for all these lenses but also several lenses were tested with low resolution sensors. Finally, I believe PZ/OL ratings are relative; if lens X got 4 stars and now lens Y tests better than X, how can Y possibly get a lower rating? Well there are good reasons why a sharper lens might deserve a lower rating.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
DXO is probably a better and more detailed reference.
What is the definition of “best” or “better”? For me, the *best* lens is one that I use the most, which means an equivalent field of view of ~40mm on 35mm film/sensor size … for most, but not all situations. My OM Zuiko 28/2.8 on Fuji AP-C gave me results I absolutely loved. My 40mm/2 Hexanon AR is outstanding on 35mm film. And for what it’s worth, how about Zeiss and Leica?!?! For me, technical testing is of limited usefulness.
Thanks for sharing.
OM Zuiko 28/2.8 one of the best 28 mm lenses in film era. They far superior than Nikon that time.
@@sstansm7f I have almost no experience with Nikkor lenses for 35mm SLR, and not the 28. I did really like the 50/1.4 non-AI but never got along with any of the Nikkormat bodies I’ve tried. I do have the 75/4.5 SW for my 4x5 - it’s great.
What is "useful" then?
@@BrunoChalifour The results, especially prints.
on the paper without own experience, it is clearly cosina. cosina was a camera manufacturer in the past, but it meets the criteria 😃.
otherwise it would be sigma thanks to huge range of lenses (also high end included).
Good point!😀
Unfortunately optical limits have only tested 1 Nikon Z lens and this pretty much makes the exercise a waste of time. You sort of make this point yourself and I agree with your conclusions. I do think the current Nikon z lenses are fantastic and they get a 4 + * review without exception. That’s not to say that there aren’t great offerings from all the other manufacturers. Fujifilm GF lenses also all seem to get consistently good reviews.
I agree, it's not perfect, but nothing is.
You got inspiration by ronin wong ?
I don't know anyone by that name.
Looking at test results is little meaningful to me.
Luckily I didn't trust the many good test results of a lens I was about to purchase some months ago.
It simply didn't fit my expectations and the look didn't please me. So 5 start rating but not my lens.
But an interesting approach Matti to simply average lens ratings.
The result shows for me more the bias or non bias of the internet page you were using as reference than saying anything about the lenses
Thanks for sharing.
Just a very shallow vue of a great difference...
Zeiss? Leica?
Zeiss have made some cameras, but they are not really a camera manufacturer. Leica is well known, but they are not really a major camera manufacturer if you look at their market share. It's also difficult to find enough Leica lens test results.
So what about Leica lenses. They are absurdly expensive compared to the rest, so their optical performance at the highest tier?
If you go to OpticalLimits site you can easily see that there are not enough tested lenses to make any conclusions. Leica also has a big reputation, but is a fairly small camera/lens manufacturer.
@@mattisulanto You just disappointed greatly! I can’t believe it! Hard to take you seriously after that.
I still compare 50mm equivalent lenses to the Leica 50mm APO. Which was my favorite for everyday use. Nothing against the Noctilux or Canon Dream Lenses or faster lenses; The APO had the look I liked. I am not sure if other people liked also or not. It was me best earner when I did stock photography. But then since it was my favorite I may have used it more and biased that.
@@DeMorcan I absolutely agree with you!
I use leica glass and without doubt they do perform better. Whether you can justify the price difference is down to personal choice
It's equivalent to comparing Britool tools to a cheaper manufacturer.. they both do the same job.
Remember the quote by Rolls Royce... People soon forget the price, but always remember the quality
Right now Sony with the GM Lenses, though Voigtländer´s APO-LANTHAR are at least as good as GM or better, I like the Voigtländer APO-LANTHAR Lenses much more then GM lenses. (I will not mention L.... lenses, because those are much too over priced !).
Thanks for sharing.
Although I appreciate the effort that went into this comparison, I think it's not very interesting to know what camera brand makes the best lenses. Those lenses are typically for their own cameras, and I don't think many people will switch systems just for the lenses.
Thanks for your thoughts. I think lenses are the reason to choose the system. If a system does not have the lenses you need or want or like, why would you choose that system?
@@mattisulanto That's true, but then you'd better make a comparison about "which system has the best lenses available". Because then you would take into consideration third party lenses as well.
Personally I chose to stay at Canon cameras - not (only) because they make the L lenses but because there are many very good third party lenses available from Sigma, for instance.
@@trouwfotomakerij That would be one way, but I chose to include only first party products for the reasons I mention in the video.
Интересное видео ! Спасибо!
Thanks.
One of the BEST Lences in the WORLD .......you do not believe, but... is.........ANY FREE LENSES...........
Wow, where do you get those?😀
Oh Matti! In my opinion this wasn't a good idea. I like photozone since a very long time. But they don't reach so wide. There are so many lenses which are not tested. This is not a good source for the answer which camera manufacturer is the best.
Thanks for your opinion. It would be nice to know if another site would give different results. If you do that, please let me know😀
Sorry but this is quite confusing to watch. You provided some brand names and scores without showing what they mean or how the scores were created. You mentioned lens design without showing any diagrams. It also wasn't clear which period you are comparing them on: Are you ranking the manufacturers on the basis of their entire history? You also didn't even mention specific lenses. I am afraid I learned very little from this.
You have to go to OpticalLimits site to read more. That's why I shared the link.
What about the obvious choice, Leica (or did you include "Pana-Leica" glass)?! They certainly don't have any "mediocre" lenses! Also, lenses can't be properly judged by the numbers--it's the look that matters and things like MFT charts can't show that. The world is also larger than so-called "FF" but obviously you had to limit your testing to keep the task manageable (thanks for taking the time and trouble). Your conclusion that there really isn't that much difference between the glass from the OEMs you tested is correct--yet another example of how gear really doesn't matter much unless you have a very particular niche requirement. Next to the photographer, glass is the most important part of the system, so I'd steer clear of cheap lenses, but I've never had a problem with any "pro" lens--it really comes down to personal preference (if one can even tell the difference) and what ecosystem best fits your needs.
Go to OpticalLimits and see how many Leica lenses they have tested and you'll understand why I could not include Leica.
What about Zeiss?
Zeiss is not a really a camera manufacturer.
@@mattisulanto Maybe the ZX1 isn't really a camera in your opinion but Zeiss always were camera manufacturers and have that experience in-house. Their lenses are exceptional and have a certain "look" that no amount of data analysing can describe. My opinion is based on personal experience and usage. I think that is the only way comparisons can be made and the results will always be based on personal preferences.
@@mattisulanto Yes although they have manufactured all the lenses for Hasselblad cameras, a brand that does not manufacture lenses. Their 35 mm lenses are not to be dismissed for a serious study.
@@BrunoChalifour This was not a serious study😅 Besides, no matter what you do, there is always someone who thinks it's all wrong😀
@@mattisulanto Yes I understand. Thanks for your time and work.
Leica makes the best lenses because they they say so
Another click bait video to try to generate some income from a biased interpretation of the results of a site testing lenses. A 7 minute video with no real new information just obvious facts and tired clichés 🤔🤭
Thanks for your opinion😀
A pointless video.
Thanks for your feedback😀
@@mattisulanto You're welcome.