How much does the appearance of a lens impact your buying decision?

[rocketman122]

For me the way a lens looks does impact if ill buy it. Its not the major decision but it does influence my decision. For instance when I was looking for a 105 macro it was between the tokina 100 and the nikon 105 afd and the vr. I did like the way the vr lens looks and the way it feels in my hand. But yes the way it looks does matter to Me and does in my final decision.

its known that people buy according to packaging. Like perfumes. The way the bottle and packaging looks very much impacts and influences peoples decisions. Sometimes even more so than the scent.

anybody see canons 24-70? t looks like a joke. Like a 24-105 f4 2500 bucks.

 

[JohnFrench]

Up to now, I have not used appearance of a lens as a factor deciding purchase. But now you have planted the seed...just kidding. I did just buy a Sigma 150-500, and was floored when the salesperson brought it out still in the box. It is huge, made me kiddy like a kid at Christmas. I still have not tried it out yet due to crappy weather, but look forward to it with great anticipation.

 

[rocketman122]

Yea thats a big tube. Like a bazooka haha

 

[§am]

I think all things being equal, appearance of a lens would make a difference to me.
But not all lenses are made equal

Also, if I'm spending time looking at how pretty my lens is, then I'm not spending enough time looking through the viewfinder.

 

[rocketman122]

I do enjoy looking at those impressive pro zoom lenses. But geez, that canon looks like a pathetic toy. Sure the performance is elite but I highly doubt the old 24-70 was any less stellar like the 28-70 vs 24-70 afs. I still think the 28-70 looks nicer than the new one. Now I know its childish but wheb I see pro photogs at weddings with anythibg but 2.8's and primes, I think in my mind "amateur" even though it might not be true. and im sure we all are impressed when we see a pro with top gear shooting a wedding. I say to myself "ah this guy is serious" even though it could be that he sucks. But truthfully it impresses when u have those pro lenses on u.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Aesthetics, for me, is all about what the images and not what the lens looks like. Provided there are no ergonomic issues that compromise how it handles it could be Pepto Pink for all I care.

 

[Scott Murray]

The quality of the image produced impacts more on my lens choice then the looks. Its like buying a AWD Mercedes to drive off road because they look good where as the Nissan Patrol would go more places at less cost.

 

[rocketman122]

yes absolutely, but thers only so much kit lenses can do. theres a certain polish or quality feel to those expensive lenses. theres a reason why theyre so expensive. theres no denying the unique look of the images from a 70-200 2.8 vs a 70-300. gear is what limits talented photographers. I decide to buy expensive gear because the IQ it can give me cant be duplicated with cheaper lenses. first and foremost is image quality for me and personally, I cant get the IQ I want from cheaper lenses. I can work with the cheaper lenses but I wont be happy with the IQ. it will look ok, but nothing special. give me pro glass and then I shine.

 

[480sparky]

The only appearance I give a crap about is what the image looks like.

I don't care what the lens looks like.

 

[rocketman122]

The only appearance I give a crap about is what the image looks like.

I don't care what the lens looks like.

what glass do you own?

 

[PapaST]

Appearance plays a role for me... for sure. Obviously the IQ is more important but I'm more vain than most. Lucky for me, IQ and aesthetics usually go hand in hand with the lenses I buy (or at least can afford to buy). In general the more you pay, the faster the lens, the better the IQ and at the same time the more thought and design go into the lens. That's just me.

 

[480sparky]

what glass do you own?

Sigma 8/3.5 circular fisheye.
Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye
Tokina 17/3.5 SL
Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AF-D
Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-G
Nikkor 24-120/4 AF-G
Nikkor 28/2.8 Ai
Nikkor 28-200/4.5-5.6 AF-D
Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-D
Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-G
Nikkor 105/2.8 F-D
Nikkor 70-200/2.8 AF-G
Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-G
Nikkor 500/8
Sigma 600/8

 

[Pretzel]

If the quality is the same, or it's an option of looks for the same product, then yes. If not, then quality and price are my determining factors, not the look of the lens. I want quality photographs from my camera, not quality photographs of my camera. Granted, I don't have a lot of lenses, but never once did I think "Wow, I'd love to be seen with that lens on my camera", but rather "I can't wait to take some pics with that thing."

On a side note: I've done some reading on "lens mods", to get the white lens look, etc., and I'm baffled. Then again, I'm the guy who bought the red D3100 because it was cool and different​. LOL

 

[Dave_W]

While I enjoy the look of a great lens, I think the name on the side is far more important then the look. I learned a long time ago that there are some times and places in which you get what you pay for. And in the world of photography is an excellent example of getting what you pay for. Hence, there's a reason Nikkor lenses are more expensive than 3rd party lenses. Their optics and overall performances are nearly always finer than the comparative 3rd party lens. Equally important is the resale value of your lenses. Nikkor lenses hold their retail value for higher and longer than non-Nikkor lenses. So in the long run you actually pay less for the more expensive Nikkor lenses than non-Nikkor lenses. In fact, you can view your lens collection as a long term "rental" that can occasionally cost you nothing or even result in a profit from "renting" them. You will not get this same opportunity with a 3rd party lens.

 

[SkvLTD]

Generally, for me its all about image quality X price point. Has to be bang for buck for my broke azz to be able to afford it, but there's no sense shelling any money for some truly awful optics and mechanisms (unless 5$ bargain bin like my CPC tele zoom). The only time aesthetics got my attention was the 45 AI-P for being a true, Nikon-made and CPU'ed pancake and a collector kind of lens, but with very interesting light dispersal to boot thanks to its Tessar design.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

While I do like a nice looking lens, looks alone won't keep me from buying what I know to be an excellent lens. I will admit to feeling a bit sheepish when I'm out with my Sigma 50-150mm, though, simply because it's so freaking huge. The GF remarks how I don't need to compensate for anything which, while reassuring, rather drives home the overall point: I don't like carrying a lens that feels so conspicuous.

...

 

[Deezey]

If I inquire about a lens at the local camera shop, and it appears before me....I buy it. So in a way...appearance is everything.


But if the glass in intact, and everything works the way it should....its mine. Some people may get caught up in the looks or the name. But I just need results. And those 3rd party lenses are quickly gaining on that Nikkor status. And since I purchase on a rent to own basis, the 3rd party gear can be a huge advantage of stepping up into better glass without breaking my rather fragile piggy bank.

 

[hark]

For the most part, I don't let looks dictate whether or not I purchase a lens. That said, when I was comparing wide angle lenses, I bypassed the Tokina because of the bulbous front glass. How a lens performs is my primary determining factor although its weight is something I also consider (since I have tendonitis in both forearms).

 

[SkvLTD]

Also, why not both? Aka Voigtlander.