TTL
Member
Comparing the best newest aspherical and spherical*lenses from Leica, Nikon, Cannon, Sony, and other makers… *do these lenses all give a different aesthetic "Look" or do they create similar pictures that are about the same? *Have we reached the point of diminishing returns in lens differences? *
Now be honest! *Have all the best lenses become about the same, such that they have lost their ability to cause us to select one maker over another?**Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?
Sure physical build quality matters too but even this is now similar enough to make it loose its place as a single reason to select any makers lenses, has it not?* Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?
As all makers lenses approach "perfection" they by definition are all becoming very similar lenses. *It can NOT BE TRUE that these lenses give different aesthetics, "looks", however you want to say it, if they are all are approaching technical perfection. *As the MTF curves are all mostly high*above 50% and*"flat" across the lens from center to outer,*and "next to each other for "tangental and*sagittal*lines" then these lenses must by definition create very very very similar looking images. *Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?
Given the computer design of lenses and the CNC (computer numerically controlled) lens production, all lenses*MUST be nearing the point of diminishing returns as pertains to improvements in image quality. *
As all companies have essentially the same design software, materials, and production equipment available to them, the images made by all lenses are very good and very similar to other makers lenses.*
As I switch to a mirrorless system, the body matters the most, that is how easy it is to use. *The similarity of lenses*puts me in the*strange position of possibly SELLING my Leica-M ASPH manual focus*lenses, all the best ones, and possibly buying Nikon, Canon, Sony,*or Leica's new mirrorless*lenses to match the body I like best. *It doesn't matter who makes the lenses since they are all so good that the few differences in them just do not matter, if I'm honest about it… Of course, yes, this apparent truth*makes me want to vomit.*
So with modern nearly perfect lenses*differences so small that I find it stupid to discuss them… the only differentiating features of *modern cameras are the color science and camera body handling features (ergonomics). *People who "fix it in post" will even forget the color science and*go for the most noiseless sensor implementation giving the highest ISO.*
So please comment… and extend some kindness… this is not my fault… we are all dealing with it… my love for Leica is not waning… instead I am heart broken to think another could satisfy me as well a the red dot.**
With all makers new lenses reaching near perfection can I, should I, just buy the easiest to use body and forget lenses as part of the selection process*since the best ones are all about the same anyway? *Probably this is what I will be doing unless talked out of it and I am thinking that others will do the same without thinking about it so much.**
Really the only lenses I am likely to keep are old lenses from the 1930-1980's that have unique image quality aesthetics that can not be called perfection yet do look beautiful. *But the more perfect M ASPH's I should sell to buy the equivalent "perfect lens" from the maker of my new mirrorless autofocus body. ***
If*the M ASPH lenses could be used when focused at infinity, on a body that could then auto-focus them, (a 3rd party adapter of uncertain dependability is already available to do this),*only then would they have present value forcing me to keep them and buy more. *
Comments?**
Now be honest! *Have all the best lenses become about the same, such that they have lost their ability to cause us to select one maker over another?**Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?
Sure physical build quality matters too but even this is now similar enough to make it loose its place as a single reason to select any makers lenses, has it not?* Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?
As all makers lenses approach "perfection" they by definition are all becoming very similar lenses. *It can NOT BE TRUE that these lenses give different aesthetics, "looks", however you want to say it, if they are all are approaching technical perfection. *As the MTF curves are all mostly high*above 50% and*"flat" across the lens from center to outer,*and "next to each other for "tangental and*sagittal*lines" then these lenses must by definition create very very very similar looking images. *Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?
Given the computer design of lenses and the CNC (computer numerically controlled) lens production, all lenses*MUST be nearing the point of diminishing returns as pertains to improvements in image quality. *
As all companies have essentially the same design software, materials, and production equipment available to them, the images made by all lenses are very good and very similar to other makers lenses.*
As I switch to a mirrorless system, the body matters the most, that is how easy it is to use. *The similarity of lenses*puts me in the*strange position of possibly SELLING my Leica-M ASPH manual focus*lenses, all the best ones, and possibly buying Nikon, Canon, Sony,*or Leica's new mirrorless*lenses to match the body I like best. *It doesn't matter who makes the lenses since they are all so good that the few differences in them just do not matter, if I'm honest about it… Of course, yes, this apparent truth*makes me want to vomit.*
So with modern nearly perfect lenses*differences so small that I find it stupid to discuss them… the only differentiating features of *modern cameras are the color science and camera body handling features (ergonomics). *People who "fix it in post" will even forget the color science and*go for the most noiseless sensor implementation giving the highest ISO.*
So please comment… and extend some kindness… this is not my fault… we are all dealing with it… my love for Leica is not waning… instead I am heart broken to think another could satisfy me as well a the red dot.**
With all makers new lenses reaching near perfection can I, should I, just buy the easiest to use body and forget lenses as part of the selection process*since the best ones are all about the same anyway? *Probably this is what I will be doing unless talked out of it and I am thinking that others will do the same without thinking about it so much.**
Really the only lenses I am likely to keep are old lenses from the 1930-1980's that have unique image quality aesthetics that can not be called perfection yet do look beautiful. *But the more perfect M ASPH's I should sell to buy the equivalent "perfect lens" from the maker of my new mirrorless autofocus body. ***
If*the M ASPH lenses could be used when focused at infinity, on a body that could then auto-focus them, (a 3rd party adapter of uncertain dependability is already available to do this),*only then would they have present value forcing me to keep them and buy more. *
Comments?**
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
Oh, boy. Can O’ Worms.
No. No they are not.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I prefer lenses that render good, natural, evenly sharp images. My work is about the subject, first and last. I find that lenses with an excessively strong 'signature' tend to 'get in the way' of my subject.
Dogman
Mentor
The light is always different. The light determines look. The lens just translates. And lenses translate differently.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
My most "modern" lens is from the late 1980s. It draws great. Oh, my most modern Leica lens is a DR Summicron, which has been proven to be perfect, at least to me.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Richard G
Mentor
I have Leica and Zeiss and Voigtländer in LTM and M mount and some OM Zuiko lenses and one Pentax 55 and some Hasselblad and one Rolleiflex lens and they’re all different in the look they produce.
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
This same argument was proffered in the Sixties with regard to amplifiers: if they all measure the same, they will all sound the same. Correct all the measurable distortions and all amps would be perfect, they would all sound the same, so no point in spending any more than what the lowest cost one costs. You could measure all the measurable parameters, and “perfect” them, yet not only did they not sound remotely the same, the ones that were designed to chase those perfect distortion measurement figures actually sounded the worst, generally. It was a false premise, as I suspect this one is as well, if perhaps to a lesser extent.
“Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured.”
Lens makers are chasing lower CA numbers, greater resolution, and so on because perfecting those things generates numbers and charts that can be used to market lenses, and because improving those things are considered by most to be the “goal.” But, that still leaves flatness of field, how transitions within the field of focus are handled, how different proprietary glass formulations render the visible light spectrum, and on and on and on.
I have spent, keep spending, stupid money on glass, completely bleeding edge modern glass, old glass, from different manufacturers, many of the same focal length and speed. None of them look “the same.” I wish they did, it would be cheaper, but they don’t.
They’re all good, maybe they’re all great. We passed the point of lens design sufficiency many years ago, if the point is “can I make a good photo with this?” You can do that with almost anything, but they certainly won’t look the same.
They say seeing is believing, but people tend to be better at believing than they are at seeing.
Maybe this great confluence will happen in the future, but I don’t think we are anywhere near there now. Yeah, they’re all sharp, but even the sharp looks different.
“Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured.”
Lens makers are chasing lower CA numbers, greater resolution, and so on because perfecting those things generates numbers and charts that can be used to market lenses, and because improving those things are considered by most to be the “goal.” But, that still leaves flatness of field, how transitions within the field of focus are handled, how different proprietary glass formulations render the visible light spectrum, and on and on and on.
I have spent, keep spending, stupid money on glass, completely bleeding edge modern glass, old glass, from different manufacturers, many of the same focal length and speed. None of them look “the same.” I wish they did, it would be cheaper, but they don’t.
They’re all good, maybe they’re all great. We passed the point of lens design sufficiency many years ago, if the point is “can I make a good photo with this?” You can do that with almost anything, but they certainly won’t look the same.
They say seeing is believing, but people tend to be better at believing than they are at seeing.
Maybe this great confluence will happen in the future, but I don’t think we are anywhere near there now. Yeah, they’re all sharp, but even the sharp looks different.
steveyork
Well-known
Ha, ha, my lens is bigger then your lens!
Seriously though, for B&W film, I do prefer the older, often flawed (ie, character) lenses, although there has to be a certain minimal level of sharpness. The 80's seems to have struck a good balance. The modern asphericals I find too jarring and clinical. The converse for color film, which I don't do much anymore. Don't know anything about digital -- don't all lenses look good on digital???
Having said all that, light and composition are usually more important then optics, but it's fun to talk about.
Good that we all have different tastes, because otherwise photography would have too much sameness from pic to pic.
Seriously though, for B&W film, I do prefer the older, often flawed (ie, character) lenses, although there has to be a certain minimal level of sharpness. The 80's seems to have struck a good balance. The modern asphericals I find too jarring and clinical. The converse for color film, which I don't do much anymore. Don't know anything about digital -- don't all lenses look good on digital???
Having said all that, light and composition are usually more important then optics, but it's fun to talk about.
Good that we all have different tastes, because otherwise photography would have too much sameness from pic to pic.
benlees
Well-known
I like some resolution, mixed in with some accutance, some straight lines, and decent colour transmission, set the oven to f5.6 and this can be found baked into many lenses, most of them affordable. Yummm!
JeffS7444
Well-known
I think today's designers can produce whatever look and level of performance you need including the quality of the "bokeh". But there are always tradeoffs to be made in order to deliver a product which offers appealing features, size, weight and price. And there's also a niche market for certain kinds of aberrations.
Hari
Well-known
I don't have the capital for 'new' Leica glass.
zuiko85
Mentor
Not sure what the OP is getting at. ‘All lenses reaching technical perfection’?
Really don’t think so. I have micro 4:3 and can buy a manual focus 25mm f1.8 Chinese made lens for $80 or a auto focus 25mm f1.8 Zuiko for $300 and, ignoring auto focus for the moment, would expect the Zuiko to have considerably better resolution and contrast.
Since necessity is upon me I bought the 7Artisans used/LINB off ebay for $50. The rest of my lens selection is a mix of 1960’s Pen F and 1970’s OM system Zuikos.
Really don’t think so. I have micro 4:3 and can buy a manual focus 25mm f1.8 Chinese made lens for $80 or a auto focus 25mm f1.8 Zuiko for $300 and, ignoring auto focus for the moment, would expect the Zuiko to have considerably better resolution and contrast.
Since necessity is upon me I bought the 7Artisans used/LINB off ebay for $50. The rest of my lens selection is a mix of 1960’s Pen F and 1970’s OM system Zuikos.
james.liam
Well-known
More like a barrel of Burmese pythons.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
There’s no single perfect design - all lens designs involve tradeoffs among various parameters to correct optical “errors” and that’s where differences appear. Then there are choices as to number of elements, the type of glass used, and so on.
However, for the most part I agree with you. Older lenses, like 1950’s cars, showed more variety.
However, for the most part I agree with you. Older lenses, like 1950’s cars, showed more variety.
peterm1
Mentor
I think there is a strong element of truth to the idea that many modern lenses from different makers have converged towards a more or less common look - at least within specific categories of lenses. The attempt to make mainstream lenses all things to all people (sharp, contrasty, excellent bokeh, fast speed but still as light as possible resulting in the use of aspherics etc etc - though some of these design objectives conflict with each other too of course so choices need to be made) has tended to mean lots of different lenses end up producing images that are technically excellent but maybe are not always for those like me who likes artistic rendering. But I have also noticed some tendency to cater to niches as well. And that can only be good for consumers who are looking for something special.
As for me I continue to mainly shoot with older lenses many of which were designed using time consuming manual computation methods, skill and intuition. Hence there is more variability between lenses from different makers and eras. I actually appreciate lenses that are a little less contrasty than is the modern norm, which are inclined to (for example) flare a bit and which are somewhat soft at the edges or which have some vignetting. Even a bit of distortion is not a deal breaker (it usually can after all be fixed if needed or ignored as irrelevant in many shots and the same might be said for color rendition.) These are all potential "failings" that would get a modern lens marked down quite significantly in scoring.
In particular I tend to use modern AF lenses (and even more especially, zoom lenses) only when I am on holidays and know that I do not have the luxury of being able to carry a large number of older lenses with me and also know that the emphasis has to be on getting the shot efficiently as, in a week or even just a few days, I will be winging my way home and thus have lost the opportunity for a "redo" if I miss the shot. But if I am shooting in my home city I almost always use those lovely old lenses if for no other reason than to experiment with what they can do.
As for me I continue to mainly shoot with older lenses many of which were designed using time consuming manual computation methods, skill and intuition. Hence there is more variability between lenses from different makers and eras. I actually appreciate lenses that are a little less contrasty than is the modern norm, which are inclined to (for example) flare a bit and which are somewhat soft at the edges or which have some vignetting. Even a bit of distortion is not a deal breaker (it usually can after all be fixed if needed or ignored as irrelevant in many shots and the same might be said for color rendition.) These are all potential "failings" that would get a modern lens marked down quite significantly in scoring.
In particular I tend to use modern AF lenses (and even more especially, zoom lenses) only when I am on holidays and know that I do not have the luxury of being able to carry a large number of older lenses with me and also know that the emphasis has to be on getting the shot efficiently as, in a week or even just a few days, I will be winging my way home and thus have lost the opportunity for a "redo" if I miss the shot. But if I am shooting in my home city I almost always use those lovely old lenses if for no other reason than to experiment with what they can do.
agentlossing
Well-known
Image quality ceased to be the reason to shoot with interesting camera systems awhile ago. Sony putting their best sensors in their own cameras made this so. Optics are now a race to best fit digital sensors, providing the most micro-contrast, accurate colors, bokeh, yada yada. None of that is very interesting to me, I like character, and process. Chasing the best results has led people past the fun parts of photography.
raid
Dad Photographer
I love using my lenses from the 1930's. They render images differently from lenses made a couple of years ago. I find modern lenses are also very useful to have and use.
back alley
IMAGES
nicely stated...