Godfrey
somewhat colored
I am SO going to enjoy snapping a roll of exposures this weekend with the new-to-me 1939 Robot Star II with Zeiss Jena Biotar 4cm f/2 ...
Sharp, schmarp. I want to see what it does and whether it makes me happy. The camera as a curiosity does already. ;-)
G
Sharp, schmarp. I want to see what it does and whether it makes me happy. The camera as a curiosity does already. ;-)
G
dabick42
-
Hell hath no fury like a Leica owner (in particular) who's been scorned, spurned, slighted or slagged off, and whose reproducing equipment (his lenses, that is ..) has been criticised for being overly soft, limp and lacking in appeal and potency....
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Godfrey,
NERD ALERT! Now read on...
The '40mm' seems to be a 42.5mm according to some sources -- effectively, in pure theory, just about the perfect theoretical length for a full frame 35mm negative (about 1mm short). Except that -- oh, dear -- you'll be shooting 24x24... EDIT -- I apologize to those who misunderstood: I was calling myself a nerd, for bringing up such otherwise pointless minutiae, as an example of how little theory normally matters.
Theory rarely matters much. I just get pissed off with people who deny that there have been any (theoretical) advances in lens design. Whether you get great pics with your Biotar or not, you'll enjoy using it. But when someone says, "I want a good lens for a __________" and someone recommends a frankly lousy vintge lens, or says "You can still take great pics with a [select old mushy lens here]" I wonder how much they're doing to help the OP with his (rarely if ever her) question.
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
It's the same as in my kitchen, I have a sauce pan, pancake pan, sautee pan. Basically they're all very good pan but I need different pan for different job. I hope this pan analogy does make sense to you.
You're right, different pan for a different job. I have a large pan and a small pan. When I don't have a lot to cook I take the small one so that I don't waste energy. So you see we think differently about the definition of job here.
V-12
Well-known
This feels like the regular roundabout discussion born of needing something to talk about. The world would have been just that little bit quieter and content without it. But while the topic has been raised it is universally true that a good photographer armed only with a pinhole camera will make more successfully engaging photographs that a halfwit armed with the latest Canon or Fuji. And yes I agree with you Roger, image standards on the web are woeful and often amount to little more than demonstrating that the photographers equipment is real and not imaginary, when all we yearn for is for the 'photographer' to 'get real'.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
No, I was calling myself a nerd. Only a nerd would know that a '40mm' Biotar is probably a 42.5mm. You've missed the point again.
Yes, I do know a bit more about photography than some people -- and, it must be said, less than some others. You are the same. You know more than some people, and less than others.
Knowledge and opinion are not the same thing.
Cheers,
R.
peterm1
Mentor
The point of course is that absolute quality of lens does not matter beyond a certain point for most applications. Although its true to say also that its a matter of "horses for courses" in that a lens which is great for one purpose is mediocre or poor for another or simply cannot do it. (Micro lenses compared with normal range lenses spring to mind). But in general there is a range of lenses with differing qualities which as Roger says can all make great images.
I have never been a pixel peeper and never have worried about absolute lens quality very much. I am much more impressed by the feel an image has than its absolute technical qualities. It follows that the absolute high technical qualities in the lens may not be required.
But when one looks at what has been achieved in lenses over the past couple of decades or more it has been startling. Let's catalog them (although I am sure I will leave some out).
New and better coatings which allow much more complex lens designs with more elements.
Computer aided design which ditto allows more complex lens designs and also allows much flexible lenses - who would have contemplated two decades ago the huge proliferation of lenses in the 16mm or shorter range -And often in zooms! And for full frame lenses!
New materials technology such as low dispersion glass and even non glass elements making sure these "wonderlenses" are available to the masses.
And of course lets not forget new manufacturing techniques that combined with new materials lenses now to be made almost exclusively from poly carbonates and have in them aspherical elements that only a few decades ago needed hugely expensive manual grinding.
And finally I should not forget in SLR lenses AF is now "old hat" but there is the new tendency for them to have computer chip controlled vibration reduction.
All in all a pretty impressive list that in some cases does not bring the lens to absolute new technical heights in image quality but does make them more flexible - such as zooms that have huge ranges or can be shot hand held at ridiculously low light. (In the latter regard I am thinking of my Nikkor 16-35mm f4 which I have shot hand held in nearly dark conditions at about 1/8th second and produced pin sharp images)
I have never been a pixel peeper and never have worried about absolute lens quality very much. I am much more impressed by the feel an image has than its absolute technical qualities. It follows that the absolute high technical qualities in the lens may not be required.
But when one looks at what has been achieved in lenses over the past couple of decades or more it has been startling. Let's catalog them (although I am sure I will leave some out).
New and better coatings which allow much more complex lens designs with more elements.
Computer aided design which ditto allows more complex lens designs and also allows much flexible lenses - who would have contemplated two decades ago the huge proliferation of lenses in the 16mm or shorter range -And often in zooms! And for full frame lenses!
New materials technology such as low dispersion glass and even non glass elements making sure these "wonderlenses" are available to the masses.
And of course lets not forget new manufacturing techniques that combined with new materials lenses now to be made almost exclusively from poly carbonates and have in them aspherical elements that only a few decades ago needed hugely expensive manual grinding.
And finally I should not forget in SLR lenses AF is now "old hat" but there is the new tendency for them to have computer chip controlled vibration reduction.
All in all a pretty impressive list that in some cases does not bring the lens to absolute new technical heights in image quality but does make them more flexible - such as zooms that have huge ranges or can be shot hand held at ridiculously low light. (In the latter regard I am thinking of my Nikkor 16-35mm f4 which I have shot hand held in nearly dark conditions at about 1/8th second and produced pin sharp images)
daveleo
what?
Regarding Lenses . . . .
Regarding Lenses . . . .
IMO, "Better" is in the eye of the holder.
(the camera holder ).
Regarding Lenses . . . .
IMO, "Better" is in the eye of the holder.
(the camera holder
).Roger Hicks
Mentor
Only 'sort of'. Sharpness, vignetting, coma, astigmatism, contrast, distortion... It's not hard to agree about what is technically better. What is artistically better is a very different question.IMO, "Better" is in the eye of the holder.
(the camera holder
If someone asks for advice on 'a good lens' it's quite difficult to give advice other than on a technical basis. If someone asks for advice on a good 9cm lens, I can point out that a Thambar at f/6.3 to f/9, for certain kinds of portraits and still lifes and landscapes, in my experience, is stunning. I can also point out that it's heavy, slow focusing, far too soft at full aperture for most people's tastes (including mine), and ridiculously expensive.
As peterm1 points out, technically, many modern lenses are pretty incredible --- and very versatile and flexible. Given the choice of (for example) of various 9cm lenses, an Elmar, a Thambar, a first-generation pre-aspheric Summicron and second-generation pre-aspheric Summicron, the last is incomparably the most versatile lens that will suit the biggest number of photographers. This does not negate the undeniable truth that some people will prefer one of the others -- or indeed a Canon, Zeiss, Apo-Lanthar or whatever. But if someone is asking, "What's a good lens", do they REALLY want to hear (as if it were a conclusive argument) that so-and-so was the best available in the 1940s and that nobody complained 65 years ago?
Cheers,
R.
daveleo
what?
Absolutely. That was (my little punning aside) my point. It's the photographer who will decide what lens is "better" for the photo. Maybe on graph paper its technical specs are horrid, but at the moment that may be of no concern.
In other news, water is wet.
maddoc
... likes film again.
If you define "better" in the meaning of "commute immediately" than I would agree that a photographer whose photos in general have a higher impact onto a larger percentage of viewer is a better photographer.
icebear
Mentor
Poor creature but since it dead already ...
Those two are both better.
Unconditional +1.
...
It's the same as in my kitchen, I have a sauce pan, pancake pan, sautee pan. Basically they're all very good pan but I need different pan for different job. I hope this pan analogy does make sense to you.
Let pan be pan and use PanF.
... other use the money for a pair of Einstein Monoblocks and try a different light schemes...
GLF
Mmmh, would like to listen to a pair of those
Or it might just be a slow day somewhere
.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I think what Roger might be saying is "Pick the right tool for the right job (or outcome)..."
I have many sharp lenses but sometimes that's not what I want for the final outcome...
Knowing a lenses' character is very important in choosing it...
I have many sharp lenses but sometimes that's not what I want for the final outcome...
Knowing a lenses' character is very important in choosing it...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
LOL ... Yes, you're being nerdy to the max. Most lenses' actual focal lengths are slightly different from the nominal markings.
But what does it matter that this lens on 24x24 is more a "long normal" than the "perfect theoretical focal length" ...? I tend to shoot with a 40mm lens quite often, and I crop to square on 24x36mm format about 60-70% of the time anyway. So a Robot Star II with a 40mm lens is pretty much a 'perfect focal length' on the format for me.
I like square format photos a lot. I *am* really looking forward to shooting a roll with the Robot tomorrow. It's such a cool camera.
I don't know that many people answering that question deny that there have been advances in lens design, not seriously anyway. Most are simply speaking from their experience of what they hope will be a pleasing lens for the person asking the question. The great joy of interchangeable lens cameras is the ability to pick and choose from the variety of lenses that are available for whatever characteristics you like. For instance, I happen to like the modern Voigtländer Color Skopar lenses quite a lot ... not because I think they're technically superior to most of the Leica and Zeiss lenses, but because they way they render has the look of some of the Leica lenses I recall fondly from years past. In my experience, some work well on the M9, others work well on the GXR ... and I weight what I suggest for use based on my experience using the bits I recommend.
So I'll recommend a crubby old lens that I find produces a nice result - like my sweet and cheap old 1960 Hektor 135/4.5 - when someone asks that question even though I am quite sure that the latest 135mm lens will outperform it technically by a long mile.
And who's to say that the person getting that information is taking me literally or understands that I'm just recommending what I think they will enjoy?
Leica M9 + Hektor 135mm f/4.5
ISO 1000 @ f/6.7 @ 1/500
I mean, what's not to like?
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
sparrow6224
Well-known
Re: Cartier-Bresson vs Capa. Capa used better lenses. C-B was a better photographer.
The more interesting question for me has long been, who's better, Henri Cartier-Bresson or Eugene Smith? they were so radically different within a narrow context of mid century b/w 35mm photo-journalism that the question has long intrigued me. I love both of them. Smith was considerably more insane, a mental condition that helped his work.
The more interesting question for me has long been, who's better, Henri Cartier-Bresson or Eugene Smith? they were so radically different within a narrow context of mid century b/w 35mm photo-journalism that the question has long intrigued me. I love both of them. Smith was considerably more insane, a mental condition that helped his work.
dmc
Bessa Driver
I think, if you follow this forum much, it will become apparent which members think quite highly of themselves. Not worth the effort to worry too much about it. Just skip their self-serving posts and get onto the good stuff.
zeshootist
Member
I think this forum should institute a rule that each time a member makes an “authoritative” post, he must submit a good photo that he has taken. Many “gurus” would be considerably quieter.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I often post examples to back up what I say. Roger has an extremely long history as an expert on photographic technique and equipment, and has published a number of books and thousands of magazine articles illustrated with his photos. I grew up reading his articles, and think its totally awesome that he's here, even when I disagree with what he says, as I occasionally do.