markjwyatt
Well-known
In theory the OP is probably correct. Certain theories of optics lead to certain metrics that can be achieved, targeted, optimized,and often balanced against each other. With new materials, geometries (e.g., aspherical lenses), coatings, computational power, etc., new lenses may be able to optimize more and more optical metrics and in theory converge. But one thing theories (call them scientific theories) lack is aesthetics. I am sure it is possible to create metrics that relate to some aesthetic qualities, but I suspect these are fuzzier than simpler metrics (like metrics for resolution, aberrations, etc.). All that to say there probably is some convergence, especially for more mass market lenses, but there is probably plenty of room for aesthetic differences. Especially by choosing what and how to balance, even possibly sub-optimizing some areas, etc.
jarski
Mentor
Me thinks Leica SL lens lineup suffers of being perfect but anonymous (and pricey obviously). They are even harder to justify against Sigma ARTs for example, compared to olden days of Leica M and Voigtlander lenses from Japan.
gavinlg
Mentor
I partially agree with the statement.
For sure, modern optical design techniques and philosophies have homogenised lens design. I personally feel that the 70s/80s was probably the golden era of lens design, for the expensive lenses. In the same way, I feel the 70s +/- a decade or two was probably the golden era of the top end of automotive design.
The benefit of modern design can be observed most in the budget options. A fujifilm 35mm f2 or a nikkor Z 50mm f1.8 are both better lenses than 90% of the equivalent options at any price 50 years ago. Yet, I'm left completely unaffected by the nikkor Z 50mm f1.2, which seems to me to be a thoroughly boring optic.
On the other hand, I can see a design philosophy difference between (say) the canon RF lenses and the nikkor Z lenses. Both lines are usable at any aperture and technically better than anything before them, but have distinct differences in 'look' - the catseye bokeh and incredibly flat plane of focus of the nikkor S's, and the warm 'rounded sharp' look of the canon L's.
For sure, modern optical design techniques and philosophies have homogenised lens design. I personally feel that the 70s/80s was probably the golden era of lens design, for the expensive lenses. In the same way, I feel the 70s +/- a decade or two was probably the golden era of the top end of automotive design.
The benefit of modern design can be observed most in the budget options. A fujifilm 35mm f2 or a nikkor Z 50mm f1.8 are both better lenses than 90% of the equivalent options at any price 50 years ago. Yet, I'm left completely unaffected by the nikkor Z 50mm f1.2, which seems to me to be a thoroughly boring optic.
On the other hand, I can see a design philosophy difference between (say) the canon RF lenses and the nikkor Z lenses. Both lines are usable at any aperture and technically better than anything before them, but have distinct differences in 'look' - the catseye bokeh and incredibly flat plane of focus of the nikkor S's, and the warm 'rounded sharp' look of the canon L's.
CMur12
Well-known
My guess is that high-resolution sensors are a major factor in these lens designs. Digital sensors can now resolve more than film can, so lenses designed for film are no longer up to the task of getting the most out of such sensors.
I remember when Canon came out with the 5DS 50 MP cameras, and the company recommended specific lenses in their lineup to fully exploit the new sensors.
Fuji's medium format GFX line offers 50 and 100 MP sensors, and they point out that the lenses for both lines have been designed to resolve for the 100 MP versions. (They even refer to the 100 MP model as "large format," even though it's barely medium format by film standards.)
- Murray
I remember when Canon came out with the 5DS 50 MP cameras, and the company recommended specific lenses in their lineup to fully exploit the new sensors.
Fuji's medium format GFX line offers 50 and 100 MP sensors, and they point out that the lenses for both lines have been designed to resolve for the 100 MP versions. (They even refer to the 100 MP model as "large format," even though it's barely medium format by film standards.)
- Murray
RichC
Well-known
All modern lenses of similar cost and features are pretty much interchangeable. Sony, Leica, Canon... can't tell the difference if looking at photos!
Obvs. there are differences for lenses with vastly diverging prices, and specialities - a macro lens is designed to minimise distortion, and so tend to be better - sharper with few aberrations - in the corners than an all-purpose lens.
I choose a lens for its purpose, avoiding low-quality budget ones. How it "draws" is way down the list of importance for me - the right light and subject have way more impact!
That said, I do have preferences for lens optics:
Good optical quality
Any reasonable lens from any mainstream camera company made since the 1970s/1980s.
1970s designs
Modern computer-designed lenses are so good they create soulless - boring and clinical - pictures. They also create too vivid colours and too much contrast - very shouty and lacking subtlety.
Older lenses were typically designed with mostly manual calculations. The designers worked within those limitations to make lenses that were inevitably more optically flawed than modern lenses. However, the best of these designers created lenses that made photos with an emotional rendering that drew the viewer. Leica's pre-aspherical 50/1.4 Summilux designed by Walter Mandler is a superb example. Yes, its successor has superior optics and is a technical tour de force - but a "better" lens? No, in my opinion.
Lenses from this era tend to be sharp, and produce luminosity to the shadows and subtle colour - often termed "high resolution, low contrast", and sometimes called "sunny day lenses" for their ability to tame strong highlights and deep shadows. Strictly, these are faults caused by aberrations such as flare, but skilled designers make these problems work with the lens, not against it (cf. Mandler).
(Yes, I know Mandler's Summilux was designed in the 60s, but the 70s were a turning point for lens design, as advances in technology meant increased optical quality, so there are many more lenses from then that are not embarrassed by today's high-end, high-MP digital cameras. Earlier lenses in general were crappier.)
Obvs. there are differences for lenses with vastly diverging prices, and specialities - a macro lens is designed to minimise distortion, and so tend to be better - sharper with few aberrations - in the corners than an all-purpose lens.
I choose a lens for its purpose, avoiding low-quality budget ones. How it "draws" is way down the list of importance for me - the right light and subject have way more impact!
That said, I do have preferences for lens optics:
Good optical quality
Any reasonable lens from any mainstream camera company made since the 1970s/1980s.
1970s designs
Modern computer-designed lenses are so good they create soulless - boring and clinical - pictures. They also create too vivid colours and too much contrast - very shouty and lacking subtlety.
Older lenses were typically designed with mostly manual calculations. The designers worked within those limitations to make lenses that were inevitably more optically flawed than modern lenses. However, the best of these designers created lenses that made photos with an emotional rendering that drew the viewer. Leica's pre-aspherical 50/1.4 Summilux designed by Walter Mandler is a superb example. Yes, its successor has superior optics and is a technical tour de force - but a "better" lens? No, in my opinion.
Lenses from this era tend to be sharp, and produce luminosity to the shadows and subtle colour - often termed "high resolution, low contrast", and sometimes called "sunny day lenses" for their ability to tame strong highlights and deep shadows. Strictly, these are faults caused by aberrations such as flare, but skilled designers make these problems work with the lens, not against it (cf. Mandler).
(Yes, I know Mandler's Summilux was designed in the 60s, but the 70s were a turning point for lens design, as advances in technology meant increased optical quality, so there are many more lenses from then that are not embarrassed by today's high-end, high-MP digital cameras. Earlier lenses in general were crappier.)
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have always thought digital is the great equaliser in the race to the top. What distinguishes one brand from another will be user experience. I am keeping my 35mm Summilux Pre-A, and 50mm Summilux V1 even for use on the M10 for this reason.
Hilmersen
Established
Well, I use leica and fuji gear. I also have fuji 23mm f2. This is a lens that gets good reviews - but I really dislike it. It is sharper than life, and has a 3d pop that is extreme in certain conditions - but this makes the images look super-natural...and that is not the look I like at all. I like the fuji 35 1.4....but the reason most of my pictures are taken with leicas is the m-hexanon 50 f2 - I just love how it renders the world. I agree that most lens makers would be able to make similar lenses - but I am sure they have different tastes as well.
It's always fun to read lens reviews/reports when new models are introduced.
At launch, there will be many influencers with blog posts with lots of dreamy and artistic, very pleasing photos, and then a few weeks/months later there will be the technical reports that measure distortion, CA, resolution, and all the rest.
The influencers can shoot wonderful photos with any given lens, regardless of optical quality, of course.
The commenters on the technical reports will invariably complain in one fashion or another, regarding contrast, distortion, fall-off, CA, or whatever, claiming that said lens somehow falls short in one or more ways and is therefore not worth whatever retail price has been attached.
The critics would prefer that every lens have zero CA, zero distortion, infinite resolution, and so on...in other words, they'd prefer that all modern lenses essentially be equal to each other.
Bearing in mind, that when stopped down, broadly speaking, all lenses of a given focal length have pretty much created the same image for many, many decades. The only difference is the performance at the widest apertures.
At launch, there will be many influencers with blog posts with lots of dreamy and artistic, very pleasing photos, and then a few weeks/months later there will be the technical reports that measure distortion, CA, resolution, and all the rest.
The influencers can shoot wonderful photos with any given lens, regardless of optical quality, of course.
The commenters on the technical reports will invariably complain in one fashion or another, regarding contrast, distortion, fall-off, CA, or whatever, claiming that said lens somehow falls short in one or more ways and is therefore not worth whatever retail price has been attached.
The critics would prefer that every lens have zero CA, zero distortion, infinite resolution, and so on...in other words, they'd prefer that all modern lenses essentially be equal to each other.
Bearing in mind, that when stopped down, broadly speaking, all lenses of a given focal length have pretty much created the same image for many, many decades. The only difference is the performance at the widest apertures.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
kymarto
Member
There are clearly defined goals for lensmakers, which have not changed since the first lenses, which is to correct the Seidel aberrations, which are monochromatic, and then chromatic aberrations, then to optimize contrast and resolution, eliminate flare and internal reflections, eliminate color cast and color bias and probably a few other quantities I have forgotten. There is nothing here than is not quantifiable. All perfect lenses would look the same. It is impossible to correct all these things in the real world, so all lensmakers make tradeoffs. In the past, with more limited materials to work with, tradeoffs were larger. Earlier lensmakers did not have many modern glasses available today, and no good way to make aspherical elements. In the absence of modern coatings, the number of lens elements had to be limited in order to have adequate contrast and transmissibility, so more had to be done with fewer pieces of glass. And modern computer simulations make it much easier to design more complex lenses and understand how they perform before going to the trouble to build them.
No one but a few specialized companies like Lensbaby are going to go backward and not include innovations that make lenses conform more closely to the ideal. I do believe that lenses these days display more uniformity than those in the past. Of course there are differences, but those differences are becoming smaller. I have 120 vintage lenses, but when I am doing general photography I always use one of my five or six modern lenses. I would love to see a blind test where three sets of 20 photographs taken with 20 different lenses, both modern and vintage, shot three stops down or so, were presented and people had to match the image to the lens. I am confident that people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in most cases.
No one but a few specialized companies like Lensbaby are going to go backward and not include innovations that make lenses conform more closely to the ideal. I do believe that lenses these days display more uniformity than those in the past. Of course there are differences, but those differences are becoming smaller. I have 120 vintage lenses, but when I am doing general photography I always use one of my five or six modern lenses. I would love to see a blind test where three sets of 20 photographs taken with 20 different lenses, both modern and vintage, shot three stops down or so, were presented and people had to match the image to the lens. I am confident that people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in most cases.
willie_901
Mentor
Lens coatings, lens internal anti-flare design and flare inside the camera body are not homogenius.