I am a fan of BDAG. For those who don't know, “BDAG” is the commonly used abbreviation for A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. The abbreviation comes from the editors' last names: Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, thus “BDAG” 

I use this lexicon (the electronic edition from Logos, of course*) frequently. It is my primary Greek lexicon. And one of the reasons I like it is because the designers of the print edition did an excellent job in designing and implementing the typesetting/layout of the book. It is obvious that they did their homework and understood how the previous edition was used, what the distinctives were, how to accent them, and how to make the book easy to use.

A few examples are necessary.

First, the typesetter/designer of the print edition understood (or perhaps was directed by Dr. Danker) that users rely on NT citations in BDAG. Whether or not it is correct from a didactic perspective, the first thing many users do when they go to a BDAG article is look to see if the verse they are working on is cited. So, in BDAG (print and LDLS electronic version; I'm unsure about other electronic editions) the NT citations are in bold text. They stand out that much more and are easy to evaluate with a quick skim through the text.

Second, the senses within articles are clearly and visibly delineated. The “enclosed alphanumerics” (to use unicode jargon) serve as informative bullets before each major or minor sense. These are the encircled letters and shaded-background numbers that begin paragraphs. These make scanning different senses easier because it is visibly obvious where discussion of a new sense begins. The structure of the entry is also obvious.

Third, the use of bold/italics/bold-italics to differentiate depth of definition or gloss is incredibly handy. BDAG uses bold text in a definition to indicate an “extended definition”, which is a phrase or two that gets at the heart of the sense being discussed. Bold-italic text is used to indicate a “formal equivalent” which are more like functional glosses (though “gloss” is a bad word in some circles) or synonyms. And plain italic text indicates a “translation equivalent”. If a Greek citation has italic text following it, that italic text is almost always a translation of the preceding Greek text. Very handy, especially for non-Biblical citations where vocabulary may be unfamiliar.

Fourth, the references to non-Bible material are frequent and helpful. I find myself looking into Josephus and Philo references more than I would otherwise simply because BDAG cites them. The same is true for pseudepigraphal and apocryphal references. The supporting references illustrate the use of the word and sense under study. They are incredibly useful to examine to understand how the same word was used in the same way in different writings by different writers who are roughly contemporary with the NT literature.

Fifth, the normal advantages that electronic editions give you — immediate lookup destination from your electronic NA27, complete searchability, hypertext Bible references, a built-in comprehensive scripture index, freedom from continually consulting abbreviation tables with hypertext abbreviations that activate on hover, etc.

Are there things I don't like about BDAG? Sure. I disagree with some spots of entries I've studied. I would be worried if I didn't. But all in all, a good example of great context properly implemented by typesetters/designers so that folks can make the most of the information.

Oh, yeah. The Ode (er, Sonnet. Apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning). Here we go:

BDAG, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways:
I love thy extended definitions,
providing depth of insight.
I love thy functional equivalents,
displaying knowledge and delight.
I love thy translation equivalents,
erasing my vocabulary ignorance
I love thy bold enclosed alphanumerics,
giving my eyes guidance in their strain.
I love thy scholarly erudition,
informing my understanding of usage.
But most of all, O BDAG, I love thee in hypertext;
Providing copious citations to secondary sources
Allowing examination of these to expand my understanding.

Sure, it isn't technically a Sonnet (right number of lines, but my syllables are off) but you get that picture. That BDAG, it's about as groovy as a Greek lexicon can get.

* Disclaimer: I implemented the Logos version of BDAG (and several other Greek Lexicons) so my opinion of the LDLS BDAG is incredibly favorably biased.