Simple Lens Rating Criteria & Methodology

We score lenses across a consistent set of categories on a 1–10 scale, then compute a simple, unweighted average of the applicable categories. No category is given extra weight. Our tests combine checks and real‑world shooting, and we always disclose when a category is not relevant (N/A).

What we score (unweighted)

Each category is scored 1–10. If a category doesn’t apply (for example, “Digital adaptation” for a native lens), it is excluded from the rating.

1. Build quality
   Materials, assembly precision, long‑term reliability signals (focus ring feel, aperture detents, wobble, weather sealing where relevant).
2. Optical sharpness/resolution
   Center and edge acuity at key apertures (wide open, ~f/4, ~f/5.6–8). We note the field curvature and copy condition where observed.
3. Color & contrast
   Tonal neutrality/warmth, micro‑contrast, and how files grade from RAW. For vintage, the lenses we note era‑typical rendering.
4. Bokeh & rendering
   Quality of defocus transitions, specular highlights (shape, outlining, onion rings), swirl/cat’s‑eye effects, and foreground blur behavior.
5. Flare & ghosting control
   Resistance to veiling flare/ghosts with bright sources in or near the frame; effectiveness of coatings and hoods.
6. Distortion & vignetting
   Geometric distortion type/amount and corner light falloff, both wide open and stopped down (noting when in‑camera/RAW profiles are unavoidable).
7. Handling & ergonomics
   Size/weight balance, focus throw and damping, aperture operation, focus breathing (impact on framing), and day‑to‑day usability.
8. Digital adaptation ease (conditional)
   For lenses used off‑system: adapter availability, infinity focus, mirror clearance, EXIF/stops control, IBIS setup, and any optical‑adapter compromises.
9. Value / Collector & historical value
   • Modern lenses: Value = price/performance, service support, depreciation.
   • Vintage/collector lenses: Collector & historical value = historical significance, rarity, version desirability, current market range.
10. Overall enjoyment
    The “does it make you want to shoot?” factor, informed by field use across multiple sessions.

No weighting: We do not mathematically prioritize any category. Your final score is the unweighted mean of the applicable categories.

Our testing workflow (consistent & repeatable)

We combine controlled checks with real‑world field use and keep conditions as consistent as possible across lenses.

Controlled checks

• Mount & adapters: Use reputable adapters; confirm infinity focus and note any mirror‑clearance or flange issues.
• Stabilization: For tripod tests, OIS/IBIS off; for handheld impressions, we note when IBIS is on and the set focal length.
• Focus method: Magnified live view (or EVF) with focus peaking; double‑check with bracketed focus when needed.
• Apertures tested: Wide open, f/2.8 (or next full stop), f/4, f/5.6, f/8 (and f/11 for landscapes).
• Targets & scenes:
  • Flat subject (brick/structured façade) → observe field curvature/edge performance.
  • Backlit point light → assess flare/ghosting.
  • Specular background (foliage/lights) → evaluate bokeh highlights.
• Files: RAW only, daylight WB fixed, default manufacturer profile; minimal global edits (exposure/white balance) so rendering isn’t masked.

Real‑world use

• Use cases: Portraits, street, landscape, close‑focus when relevant.
• Notes kept: Handling, focusing success rate, aperture “sweet spots,” and any quirks (focus shift, breathing, sample variation).
• Hood usage: Tested with and without the hood for the flare section, and we state which applies.

Interpreting 1–10 (anchor guidance)

• 9–10 “Class‑leading” – Exceptional for its type/era; issues are minor or purely physical trade‑offs (e.g., size for performance).
• 8 “Excellent” – Strong results with minor caveats that rarely limit use.
• 7 “Good” – Solid performer; some limitations users should know.
• 6 “Adequate” – Usable with noticeable compromises or setup needs.
• 5 “Average” – Meets minimum expectations; several caveats.
• <5 “Below par” – Clear drawbacks that affect routine use.

Modern vs. vintage: how categories adapt

• Modern lenses → include Value (price/performance) and skip Collector unless historically notable.
• Vintage lenses → include Collector & historical value and typical vintage notes (coating era, blade count, version differences).
• Digital adaptation → only scored when the lens is used on a non‑native system or when adaptation is a key part of ownership.

Version differences & sample variation

• Many lenses exist in multiple versions (coatings, diaphragm blade count, and mechanical revisions). We identify the tested version and note any known differences.
• Vintage copies vary (decentering, haze, lubrication, balsam separation). If we suspect a copy issue, we say so. When possible, we test multiple copies or cross‑check against prior samples.

What we don’t do

• No lab MTF charts: We rely on consistent field‑relevant checks and high‑resolution screens/prints rather than publishing bench charts.
• No weighting: Every applicable category counts equally in the final score.
• No heavy post‑processing on samples: We keep edits minimal so native rendering stays visible.

Pros & Cons and the Summary

Every review ends with:

• Pros & Cons – concise, practical bullets tied directly to the categories above.
• Assessment summary – a 50–90‑word TL;DR stating who the lens is for, the key strength, and the main caveat.

Legacy terms → Current mapping (for returning readers)

Your older rubric used terms like PhotoFinesse, Photographing Journey, and Compatibility & Adaptability. These now map as follows for clarity and consistency across reviews:

• PhotoFinesse → Overall enjoyment
• Photographing Journey → Handling & ergonomics
• Compatibility & Adaptability → Digital adaptation ease
  (These changes are editorial only; the underlying ideas remain the same.)

Example scoring block