I can’t think of anyone who doesn’t go through some amount of indecision when it comes to picking out a new lens to get. One major factor in decision making is the cost of the lens. Some are affordable, others are better but less affordable, and others are out right expensive. In the end, is there a noticeable difference?
In this video, Matt Day presents two 35mm f/2.5 lenses: a Voigtlander Skopar and a Leica Summarit (the newer, f2.4 version can be found here). The difference in cost between the two was $1,000 (Voigtlander: $300 vs. Leica: $1,300), which is as much or more than many people expect to pay for a new manual focus lens. The video runs through example photographs with both lenses followed by direct side-by-side comparisons of the two lenses using a Leica M6.
I know, I know, what is and is not “expensive” is all relative. While $1,000 may not sound like much to someone who makes their living on their photography; however, for those of us who pursue photography as an extracurricular activity, $1,000 could be considered a pretty serious investment. I’ve been looking for a good 35mm lens for my F100 for months and still remain undecided. For the longest time, I wanted the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 when my Sony a7 saw the majority of my photographic action, but now, I’m deciding between a Sigma, Tamron’s new f/1.4, or one of Nikon’s 35mms.
Have you ever found yourself indecisive about which lens to get? Have you ever done any side-by-side comparisons of a lens? I’d love to hear your thoughts and comments.