Upload & Sell: Off
Interesting. What's the criteria? If it's durability, I'd put Zeiss ZE/F/etc ahead of the CV SLR lenses. The delta there isn't as wide as say between ZM and CV RF lenses, but it's there. It sounds strange to say it, but I'd feel better about my chances of having a useful lens after I dropped a ZF 50/1.4 than I would if I dropped a Nokton 58.
OM's probably in the right place for the line average, but the sub-90mm primes tend to be built like tiny little tanks. They don't provide the best feedback or overall user experience, but...Show more →
overall criteria is feel of durability, strength, and precision of movements. i can't speak for actual durability as i've only owned one of most lenses (and i tend not to drop them), a large sample size is necessary to really know about durability. also, there might be internal weaknesses that i'm not aware of and haven't manifest themselves yet (though doubtful as i've disassembled a lot of my lenses).
i grouped the Z* and CV lenses on the assumption that they use similar materials, parts, and construction (though obviously the zeiss lenses are designed to a higher price point). the only CV lens i've actually held was the 180/4.
the OM lenses get low marks for thinner flimsier metals than many other manufacturers, less rugged optical assemblies, and rubber grips that easily get stretched out.