NickTrop
Mentor
So -- one of the on-going debates on internet photo circles is that older primes with fewer elements produce a better 3D-pop than newer lenses. -- That newer lenses sacrifice microcontrast for the sake of better across the frame resolution numbers especially at wider apertures but the resulting images are "flat" compared to their older lens counterparts with simpler designs. The argument is that newer lenses are "overcorrected" and each element deletes microcontrast and reduces "pop". Proponents of this argument are Yannick Khong (The Problem with Modern Lenses) and Ken Wheeler (The Angry Photographer) who has an active YouTube channel who claims "glass is evil". Others say the whole notion is BS.
I generally agree with the "glass is evil" arguments. (There is a damning quote by someone from Sigma that, paraphrasing, says they reduced the resolution of the Sigma 50/1.4 Art in favor of contrast implying that there is an inverse relationship between resolution and contrast. I can't find that qoute -- it exists, and if I find a link later I'll edit and include the it...)
I generally prefer the look of older glass. Here's what "I" think, and am floating a theory.
The Light as Medium for Information Theory.
IF you look at the DXO scores of the 50/1.4 AF-D Nikkor, a lens I own (love, won't buy another in this focal length) you will find something unique about this lens. Its widest aperture is 1.4. Its "transmission" score is 1.4. Therefore, none of the light is "lost". 100% of it hits the sensor. But my argument is that light is really a medium for information. What information? Detail, tonality, and color. Now. I certainly haven't seen -every- lens spec on DXO but the case of this 50/1.4 Nikkor struck me. This is a lens that has, imo, "3D pop". Light is the medium that carries information about the subject you're photographing. 100% of that information is passing through the lens and reaching the sensor. Hence, "pop". No other lens that I've observed on DXO has its wide ap value equaling its transmission value other than the old Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D.
In the case of the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, it's a 1.4 lens, however, its DXO "transmission score" is 1.7. That means that (doing some quick division -- 1.4/1.7) only 82% of the information-carrying light is hitting the sensor with 18% of that INFORMATION being lost being "eaten" by all that evil glass in the lens barrel (13 elements vs 7 elements in the classic Nikon design). Since this is a high-resolution lens, the majority of that lost information is tonality/color information. This lens has been criticized by some as rendering "flat" images.
A similar observation can be made comparing the somewhat lower resolution Nikon 35/2 D which is a low element count lens with "pop" compared to modern counterparts, as it passes over 90% of the tonal/color INFORMATION to the sensor comparing its apreture to its t-stop values.
Sharpness and Diminishing Returns.
I think tonal and microcontrast information loss is more observable in photos than mere resolution especially if the resolution loss occurs on the corners and borders of the frame. Whether an image has that 3D "pop" or not is observable immediately when looking at a picture as a whole. But in nearly every comparison I've seen online, those making the comparison will zoom 400% to show how the new lens resolves that freckle on someone's nose where it may not show up at all at 1.4 on a lens with lower resolution specs. To which I say, "who cares?"
Further, a lot of loss of resolution occurs at the borders and edges. Often these areas are dark or out of focus. Virtually never is a subject placed in these regions. Center sharpness is what matters far, far more for most applications other than, perhaps, technical photos.
The Forgotten Apertures in Modern Lenses.
Finally, I say that because newer lenses resolve more detail at wider apertures, folks run around and shoot everything at 1.4 "because you can". This inherently causes a loss of dimensionality as objects in the foreground and backgrounds abruptly fall out of focus without the gradiation you get at 2.8, 3.5, f4 where there is a greater focus gradiation from out of focus to critical focus to out of focus in the foreground, midground, and background. This is especially true of cropped sensors (and it's one of the reasons why I now shoot digital exclusively full frame.) With older lenses we tend to avoid the widest apertures as we avoid the smallest last couple because of diffraction. NOT shooting wide open -- stoppig down a stop or three, especially on full frame and larger film formats gives a greater sense of dimensionality. The best way to achieve perceptual diminsionality in a 2D photo, is to shoot at larger formats (FF digital, MF, LF film) at apertures (in FF) between 2.8 and 5.6 depending on subject distance.
Summary
1. Light is a medium. It is a carrier of detail, color, and tonal information. It's not "just light". It may be important to look at the ratio between a the wide aperture spec of a lens and its t-stop value because the light loss is not as important as the inforation that light is carrying. If a lens has a high resolution spec but low A/T ratio the detail information is hitting the sensor but the color and microcontrast information is being "eaten" by all those excessive elements.
2.Resolving power is a true case of diminishing returns often adding absolutely nothing to an image (but is easy to graph on charts). In a sense this is the new "megapixel" war -- an easy way to quantify the "goodness" of an optic in a simple number when a true assessment is much more complicated or just flat-out subjective.
3. Too many people running around shooting their new lenses wide open because modern lenses are designed to optimize performance at the widest aps... This results in folks running around shooting everything up close and at f1.4. But this is a terrible aperture value to convey dimensionality. Lower apertures result in more focus gradiation giving a greater sense of dimensionality.
I generally agree with the "glass is evil" arguments. (There is a damning quote by someone from Sigma that, paraphrasing, says they reduced the resolution of the Sigma 50/1.4 Art in favor of contrast implying that there is an inverse relationship between resolution and contrast. I can't find that qoute -- it exists, and if I find a link later I'll edit and include the it...)
I generally prefer the look of older glass. Here's what "I" think, and am floating a theory.
The Light as Medium for Information Theory.
IF you look at the DXO scores of the 50/1.4 AF-D Nikkor, a lens I own (love, won't buy another in this focal length) you will find something unique about this lens. Its widest aperture is 1.4. Its "transmission" score is 1.4. Therefore, none of the light is "lost". 100% of it hits the sensor. But my argument is that light is really a medium for information. What information? Detail, tonality, and color. Now. I certainly haven't seen -every- lens spec on DXO but the case of this 50/1.4 Nikkor struck me. This is a lens that has, imo, "3D pop". Light is the medium that carries information about the subject you're photographing. 100% of that information is passing through the lens and reaching the sensor. Hence, "pop". No other lens that I've observed on DXO has its wide ap value equaling its transmission value other than the old Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D.
In the case of the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, it's a 1.4 lens, however, its DXO "transmission score" is 1.7. That means that (doing some quick division -- 1.4/1.7) only 82% of the information-carrying light is hitting the sensor with 18% of that INFORMATION being lost being "eaten" by all that evil glass in the lens barrel (13 elements vs 7 elements in the classic Nikon design). Since this is a high-resolution lens, the majority of that lost information is tonality/color information. This lens has been criticized by some as rendering "flat" images.
A similar observation can be made comparing the somewhat lower resolution Nikon 35/2 D which is a low element count lens with "pop" compared to modern counterparts, as it passes over 90% of the tonal/color INFORMATION to the sensor comparing its apreture to its t-stop values.
Sharpness and Diminishing Returns.
I think tonal and microcontrast information loss is more observable in photos than mere resolution especially if the resolution loss occurs on the corners and borders of the frame. Whether an image has that 3D "pop" or not is observable immediately when looking at a picture as a whole. But in nearly every comparison I've seen online, those making the comparison will zoom 400% to show how the new lens resolves that freckle on someone's nose where it may not show up at all at 1.4 on a lens with lower resolution specs. To which I say, "who cares?"
Further, a lot of loss of resolution occurs at the borders and edges. Often these areas are dark or out of focus. Virtually never is a subject placed in these regions. Center sharpness is what matters far, far more for most applications other than, perhaps, technical photos.
The Forgotten Apertures in Modern Lenses.
Finally, I say that because newer lenses resolve more detail at wider apertures, folks run around and shoot everything at 1.4 "because you can". This inherently causes a loss of dimensionality as objects in the foreground and backgrounds abruptly fall out of focus without the gradiation you get at 2.8, 3.5, f4 where there is a greater focus gradiation from out of focus to critical focus to out of focus in the foreground, midground, and background. This is especially true of cropped sensors (and it's one of the reasons why I now shoot digital exclusively full frame.) With older lenses we tend to avoid the widest apertures as we avoid the smallest last couple because of diffraction. NOT shooting wide open -- stoppig down a stop or three, especially on full frame and larger film formats gives a greater sense of dimensionality. The best way to achieve perceptual diminsionality in a 2D photo, is to shoot at larger formats (FF digital, MF, LF film) at apertures (in FF) between 2.8 and 5.6 depending on subject distance.
Summary
1. Light is a medium. It is a carrier of detail, color, and tonal information. It's not "just light". It may be important to look at the ratio between a the wide aperture spec of a lens and its t-stop value because the light loss is not as important as the inforation that light is carrying. If a lens has a high resolution spec but low A/T ratio the detail information is hitting the sensor but the color and microcontrast information is being "eaten" by all those excessive elements.
2.Resolving power is a true case of diminishing returns often adding absolutely nothing to an image (but is easy to graph on charts). In a sense this is the new "megapixel" war -- an easy way to quantify the "goodness" of an optic in a simple number when a true assessment is much more complicated or just flat-out subjective.
3. Too many people running around shooting their new lenses wide open because modern lenses are designed to optimize performance at the widest aps... This results in folks running around shooting everything up close and at f1.4. But this is a terrible aperture value to convey dimensionality. Lower apertures result in more focus gradiation giving a greater sense of dimensionality.
Steve M.
Mentor
That's the first I've heard of a theory that lenses which have only a few elements give more of a 3-D pop to photos. I don't think so. The lenses I have owned with a visible 3-D look were a Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit, a Leica R 50 2 Summicron, a Leica R 90 2 Summicron, a Rokkor 90 4, the M and LTM Leica 50 Summicrons (both fixed and collapsible versions), a Kodak Ektar on a Retina 1 camera, and my favorite, nearly all of the Voigtlander Heliar lenses no matter what format they are in. All of these lenses have lots and lots of elements.
To be blunt, most modern lenses suck. They may be sharp, but all these multi coatings and computer designed optics usually have lousy IQ and unattractive bokeh. Most people know there's a reason a lot of lens designs from 40, 50, and more years ago were classics, which is why they still demand high prices, are so avidly sought out, and give such excellent results, even on today's digital cameras. They don't do this because they look pretty on the camera, it's because they're outstanding lenses.
Theories and scientific studies are all well and good, but in mediums that are about imagery experience is all that counts. How something actually looks is the sole criteria to judge an image by. You use what gives you the look you're after. These lens tests that have all these graphs and stuff are totally useless. It doesn't matter about any of that. How it images is all you need to know. Someone who can't trust what their own eyes see is in the wrong game.
To be blunt, most modern lenses suck. They may be sharp, but all these multi coatings and computer designed optics usually have lousy IQ and unattractive bokeh. Most people know there's a reason a lot of lens designs from 40, 50, and more years ago were classics, which is why they still demand high prices, are so avidly sought out, and give such excellent results, even on today's digital cameras. They don't do this because they look pretty on the camera, it's because they're outstanding lenses.
Theories and scientific studies are all well and good, but in mediums that are about imagery experience is all that counts. How something actually looks is the sole criteria to judge an image by. You use what gives you the look you're after. These lens tests that have all these graphs and stuff are totally useless. It doesn't matter about any of that. How it images is all you need to know. Someone who can't trust what their own eyes see is in the wrong game.
NickTrop
Mentor
Here is a link to a representative article, if interested. There are many others and it is a theory that is gaining momentum. "I" gave my own thoughts, that an overlooked spec is the difference between the widest aperture value of a lens and its t-stop value. You want that ratio as close to "1" or 100% as possible because you're not losing just "light" but the tonal information the light carries, which is being absorbed by all those additional corrective elements. This loss of microcontrast and color information is more visible at the global level than loss of fine detail that occurs at the micro level, which rarely adds anything to a photo beyond a certain point, especially since this loss is often in non-critical areas -- the edge and corners as opposed to the center...
THE FLATTENING OF MODERN LENSES OR THE DEATH OF 3D POP
https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop
lxmike
M2 fan.
Thank you for posting this very thought provoking thread
pagpow
Well-known
Thanks, Nick for posting this. We have had numerous threads on 3D, pop, dimensionality, etc and, IMO, they not only devolve in arguments between those who say 3D is impossible in a 2D photograph, those who say any apparent 3D is an artifact of multiple non-lens effects (direction of light, etc) and those who show pictures taken WO with out-of-focus backgrounds where the main subject "pops" out.
Don't know if I'm adding anything to the conversation but years ago there was some speculation that, among Leica lenses anyhow, the ones exhibiting greater dimensionality were the ones with larger, rounder back elements. Don't know if your Nikon lens supports that theory or how the rounded back element theory and the Value theory you propose interact.
I do agree that photos I associate with dimensionality often give evidence of NOT being shot wide open.
Giorgio
Don't know if I'm adding anything to the conversation but years ago there was some speculation that, among Leica lenses anyhow, the ones exhibiting greater dimensionality were the ones with larger, rounder back elements. Don't know if your Nikon lens supports that theory or how the rounded back element theory and the Value theory you propose interact.
I do agree that photos I associate with dimensionality often give evidence of NOT being shot wide open.
Giorgio
Robert Lai
Well-known
I've read elsewhere - perhaps on Erwin Puts - that Leica's philosophy has always been to do the most with the minimum number of lens elements. Initially in the uncoated lens days, it was to maximize light transmission by minimizing the number of uncoated reflective lens surfaces. Even now, however, Leica lenses tend to have a low element count.
Zeiss was not unware of this. For their Contax rangefinder cameras, the lenses were primarily Sonnar designs, which are modified triplets. The 85mm focal length offers the Triotar f/4 and the Sonnar f/2. Mike Elek wrote about the surprisingly good performance of the Triotar here: http://elekm.net/zeiss-ikon/triotarfeb2006/
When I was looking for an 85mm focal length lens for the Contax IIa, Henry Scherer recommended the Triotar instead of the Sonnar f/2. The Triotar has 3 lens elements, as the name suggests. It has no distortion. The Sonnar has 6 elements, it is huge, heavy, and has less sharpness. Zeiss even advertised it as a "Portrait" lens, as a way of acknowledging that it was not the sharpest lens, especially wide open. I have the Russian Jupiter 9 version in the Kiev / Contax mount, and I agree.
Leica Canada also brought out their own 90mm triplet in the 1960s. Same reasoning I suppose.
The only lens which I own which have a lot of lens elements is my only zoom lens: the Micro-Nikkor 70-180 AF-D f/4.5 to 5.6. I think it has 13 lens elements in it. However, it is an excellent lens, and it serves its specialized macro function well. It also works fine as a general telephoto zoom, though I prefer my primes in these focal lengths. Even here, I have the Leitz Macro Elmar 90mm M, which only contains 4 elements. The Leica lens is far easier to carry around than the big Nikkor.
I still have the original Canon FL 50mm f/3.5 Macro lens, which is also a 4 element lens. Really good lens too, and you can buy it for under $60 on ebay.
Back in the 1970s, amplifier makers used so much negative feedback in their designs that people started to complain that they sounded "dead". They couldn't respond to transients in the music very well. That lead to the trend towards fewer tubes or transistors in the circuit design. And, the realization that rms distortion values weren't the only thing that affected sound rendition.
In an analogous way, I think we are coming to realize that MTF curves aren't the be all and end all holy grail of imaging quality. These latest multielement lenses may score fantastically on the MTF curves, but can also end up looking dead and dull to the eye.
Conclusion: Triplets, Elmars / Tessars (4 elements), Heliars (5 elements), and double Gauss lenses (6, maybe 7 elements) rock!
Zeiss was not unware of this. For their Contax rangefinder cameras, the lenses were primarily Sonnar designs, which are modified triplets. The 85mm focal length offers the Triotar f/4 and the Sonnar f/2. Mike Elek wrote about the surprisingly good performance of the Triotar here: http://elekm.net/zeiss-ikon/triotarfeb2006/
When I was looking for an 85mm focal length lens for the Contax IIa, Henry Scherer recommended the Triotar instead of the Sonnar f/2. The Triotar has 3 lens elements, as the name suggests. It has no distortion. The Sonnar has 6 elements, it is huge, heavy, and has less sharpness. Zeiss even advertised it as a "Portrait" lens, as a way of acknowledging that it was not the sharpest lens, especially wide open. I have the Russian Jupiter 9 version in the Kiev / Contax mount, and I agree.
Leica Canada also brought out their own 90mm triplet in the 1960s. Same reasoning I suppose.
The only lens which I own which have a lot of lens elements is my only zoom lens: the Micro-Nikkor 70-180 AF-D f/4.5 to 5.6. I think it has 13 lens elements in it. However, it is an excellent lens, and it serves its specialized macro function well. It also works fine as a general telephoto zoom, though I prefer my primes in these focal lengths. Even here, I have the Leitz Macro Elmar 90mm M, which only contains 4 elements. The Leica lens is far easier to carry around than the big Nikkor.
I still have the original Canon FL 50mm f/3.5 Macro lens, which is also a 4 element lens. Really good lens too, and you can buy it for under $60 on ebay.
Back in the 1970s, amplifier makers used so much negative feedback in their designs that people started to complain that they sounded "dead". They couldn't respond to transients in the music very well. That lead to the trend towards fewer tubes or transistors in the circuit design. And, the realization that rms distortion values weren't the only thing that affected sound rendition.
In an analogous way, I think we are coming to realize that MTF curves aren't the be all and end all holy grail of imaging quality. These latest multielement lenses may score fantastically on the MTF curves, but can also end up looking dead and dull to the eye.
Conclusion: Triplets, Elmars / Tessars (4 elements), Heliars (5 elements), and double Gauss lenses (6, maybe 7 elements) rock!
helen.HH
A smile & a wink…
Yum to 4 elements...ALL Elmars !
be it f3.5 or f2.8
they are so damn good, workhorses, Beautufully sharp, lovely oof
be it f3.5 or f2.8
they are so damn good, workhorses, Beautufully sharp, lovely oof
retinax
Well-known
Fully agree with your points 2 and 3. Not so sure about 1. Why does less light in absolute terms have to equal less information? The information is "encoded" in the relative amounts of light. It doesn't decrease when you stop down or when a cloud obscures the sun. There is something to it though if one thinks about what happens to the light that doesn't get transmitted–it ends up bouncing around in the lens, creating flare. Flare lowers contrast in the shadows, so information is indeed lost. Now coatings are very, very good nowadays and I'm pretty certain that the high element count lenses still transmit more light than uncoated simple designs.
About the lens with T=f, that's just not possible. Can you see that there's glass in there? See, some light is reflected off of the lens surfaces, ergo not transmitted. Either it actually has a larger f-stop than indicated, in order to reach T 1.4, or there's another error in the test.
About the lens with T=f, that's just not possible. Can you see that there's glass in there? See, some light is reflected off of the lens surfaces, ergo not transmitted. Either it actually has a larger f-stop than indicated, in order to reach T 1.4, or there's another error in the test.
shawn
Mentor
The lowest count lens in that article is 6 elements. Not exactly a low count. Not sure T value means much to this. If it did then stopping down a lens would be killing 3d pop since we are losing loads of 'information' that hit the first element. Likewise pop would be impossible with any sort of colored or ND filter on the lens and that just isn't the case IME.
I actually think the title of that article may be a decent idea, but the article itself doesn't follow through. 'Flattening' as in flat field might play a factor in loss of 3d pop. Lenses that aren't flat field automatically made a center subject stand out more from what is around them as the lens was blurring the edges of the picture at the same focal distance. Ditto correcting for slight vignetting on the edges of the frame.
The other thing that seems to play a role in this is the so called 'micro contrast' which is similar to ANSI contrast in a display. How big of a difference between the brightest part of the picture and the darkest part of the picture can the lens manage.
A big part of 3d pop will depend on lighting, subject distance vs background distance, focal length and aperture. Still, different lenses will react somewhat differently if all those variables are kept the same.
Shawn
peterm1
Mentor
Something I have noticed when using slow (especially f3.5 and f4) micro lenses in normal non micro settings they tend to produce nice bokeh with lots of image "pop" but nice gradation from sharp to OOF. These typically have only 4-5 elements. (e.g. see https://www.flickr.com/groups/71139756@N00/discuss/72157607962817714/ )
Of course bokeh is soft when the above are used as macro lenses but the quality of the images when shot in normal settings has always been a pleasure and a surprise for me. I have never theorized about why this may be so though I have certainly observed it.
And of course it is not limited to macro lenses when used this way. Normal but relatively slow (by modern standards) lenses of modest design (e.g old 50mm f2 and f2.8 lenses) tend to be excellent performers too. But of course lens designers have to keep coming up with more radical designs to keep selling new lenses to stay in business and while there is no doubt that the most modern designs produce some benefits (ability to be shot at max. aperture, faster, flatter field, sharper etc) there is also no doubt in my mind that sometimes (often?) this means giving something up too. For me that loss is loss of "character" - whatever that means. However, I have no theory about what that means in terms of number of elements etc, notwithstanding my observation that those simpler lenses designs can produce damn fine images.
Of course bokeh is soft when the above are used as macro lenses but the quality of the images when shot in normal settings has always been a pleasure and a surprise for me. I have never theorized about why this may be so though I have certainly observed it.
And of course it is not limited to macro lenses when used this way. Normal but relatively slow (by modern standards) lenses of modest design (e.g old 50mm f2 and f2.8 lenses) tend to be excellent performers too. But of course lens designers have to keep coming up with more radical designs to keep selling new lenses to stay in business and while there is no doubt that the most modern designs produce some benefits (ability to be shot at max. aperture, faster, flatter field, sharper etc) there is also no doubt in my mind that sometimes (often?) this means giving something up too. For me that loss is loss of "character" - whatever that means. However, I have no theory about what that means in terms of number of elements etc, notwithstanding my observation that those simpler lenses designs can produce damn fine images.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Too much read in OP on Father's day, sorry. 
But it sounds interesting.
I have Summarit 35 2.5 it has loads of microcontrast and 3D whatever. I had Ultron 35 1.7 LTM prior to this and it was awesome in same regards, but no 35mm RF lens ergonomics (nor has VM and it is ugly, IMO) and prior to this I went through all of CC 35 2.5 versions. Zero microcontrast and 3D is very rare, if not just once occurrence. But it is cute, lovely, addictive and real RF 35 except no tab P, plus affordable and superior to 7A 35 f2.
So, I leave it to someone sober to count optical elements and groups in all of the three. Or four.
Cheers, here comes my Tatra beer.
But it sounds interesting.I have Summarit 35 2.5 it has loads of microcontrast and 3D whatever. I had Ultron 35 1.7 LTM prior to this and it was awesome in same regards, but no 35mm RF lens ergonomics (nor has VM and it is ugly, IMO) and prior to this I went through all of CC 35 2.5 versions. Zero microcontrast and 3D is very rare, if not just once occurrence. But it is cute, lovely, addictive and real RF 35 except no tab P, plus affordable and superior to 7A 35 f2.
So, I leave it to someone sober to count optical elements and groups in all of the three. Or four.
Cheers, here comes my Tatra beer.
pluton
Well-known
It's mostly lighting. 70% lighting and 30% perspective. Maybe 50/50 sometimes.
Even a pinhole shot [rarely] can have a sense of dimensionality.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This is the part that I was not comfortable with, either. In addition to reflections, glass also absorbs or scatters some of the light. I don't think we can have 100% transmission.
But that some older lenses make prettier images than some highly corrected modern ones, no argument there! I hope this thread will continue, with many more ideas to be contributed! Great idea for a thread, Nick!
michaelwj
----------------
Just quickly, there is lot of misinformation and "tin foil hat" science going on here.
Your point 1;
Light carries information about intensity (number of photons), colour (wavelength of the photon), and polarisation (of each photon) and that is it. More light has more intensity (more photons), not more types of information. You can't have half a photon. Information in terms of optical communication is encoded in intensity (and sometimes polarisation).
The T-stop is only important with respect to noise. As you get a lower transmission, your signal to noise ratio decreases, and information is lost to the measurement. This is of no consequence when you are metering with a TTL meter, as it is actually reading the transmission, not the theoretical F-stop.
Now, on to the rest of it;
Historically lenses had few elements because poor coatings meant huge losses in terms of flare, reflections, and transmission. Improvements in coatings allowed more elements to be used without suffering these losses, so lens designers had more freedom to design aberration free lenses, which they did. The ultimate aim is to reduce aberrations and image a flat field on a flat sensor (film or digital). That takes a lot of elements.
What is really happening is modern lens designs are very close to this goal, imaging an aberration free image of a flat field. After all, that tests well, and tests sell lenses (to managers and consumers). What a small minority is finding is that they actually liked some aberrations, such as aberrations that eased the transmission from focus to out of focus, or that reduced contrast in the out of focus areas, or whatever the style is at the time.
It has nothing to do with the number of elements in the lens. You could design a lens to mimic a classic 4 element design with 15 elements.
To say that the number of elements and the % light transmission is one of the key elements in why modern lenses lack "character" is total baloney.
Further, to say that reducing the transmission reduces the amount of "tonal information" the light carries is just wrong. This would imply that stopping a lens down from f/1.4 to f/5.6 would reduce the "tonal information" to 6.25% (100% (1.4) -> 50% (2.0) -> 25% (2.8) -> 12.5% (4.0) -> 6.25% (5.6) of the "tonal information" at f/1.4. That must be why most lenses have such low contrast at f/5.6? Maybe that is why everyone shoots their lens wide open - to capture as much tonal information as possible.
Sometimes it's a good idea to step back and actually critically think about what someone is saying. Correlation does not imply causality.
Your point 1;
Light carries information about intensity (number of photons), colour (wavelength of the photon), and polarisation (of each photon) and that is it. More light has more intensity (more photons), not more types of information. You can't have half a photon. Information in terms of optical communication is encoded in intensity (and sometimes polarisation).
The T-stop is only important with respect to noise. As you get a lower transmission, your signal to noise ratio decreases, and information is lost to the measurement. This is of no consequence when you are metering with a TTL meter, as it is actually reading the transmission, not the theoretical F-stop.
Now, on to the rest of it;
Historically lenses had few elements because poor coatings meant huge losses in terms of flare, reflections, and transmission. Improvements in coatings allowed more elements to be used without suffering these losses, so lens designers had more freedom to design aberration free lenses, which they did. The ultimate aim is to reduce aberrations and image a flat field on a flat sensor (film or digital). That takes a lot of elements.
What is really happening is modern lens designs are very close to this goal, imaging an aberration free image of a flat field. After all, that tests well, and tests sell lenses (to managers and consumers). What a small minority is finding is that they actually liked some aberrations, such as aberrations that eased the transmission from focus to out of focus, or that reduced contrast in the out of focus areas, or whatever the style is at the time.
It has nothing to do with the number of elements in the lens. You could design a lens to mimic a classic 4 element design with 15 elements.
To say that the number of elements and the % light transmission is one of the key elements in why modern lenses lack "character" is total baloney.
Further, to say that reducing the transmission reduces the amount of "tonal information" the light carries is just wrong. This would imply that stopping a lens down from f/1.4 to f/5.6 would reduce the "tonal information" to 6.25% (100% (1.4) -> 50% (2.0) -> 25% (2.8) -> 12.5% (4.0) -> 6.25% (5.6) of the "tonal information" at f/1.4. That must be why most lenses have such low contrast at f/5.6? Maybe that is why everyone shoots their lens wide open - to capture as much tonal information as possible.
Sometimes it's a good idea to step back and actually critically think about what someone is saying. Correlation does not imply causality.
charjohncarter
Mentor
In passing I've thought about this subject but in a very personal way: which of my lenses have 'pop.' The lenses that I have with 'pop' are: my Thorium Pentax Super Takumar f1.4 50mm, My Pentax 105mm 6x7 Thorium f2.4, and surprisingly my lens on my Balda Hapo 66e which I think is a three element. I have a few others but those stand out.
I think you are on to something here, this is my 6x7 lens which always looks better than anything else I have (3D):
Ektar 100 by John Carter, on Flickr
I guess I should also include the Elmar f3.5 50mm and was reminded by PeterM of my Pentax Macro 50mm f4.0, but I don't use it much.
I think you are on to something here, this is my 6x7 lens which always looks better than anything else I have (3D):
Ektar 100 by John Carter, on FlickrI guess I should also include the Elmar f3.5 50mm and was reminded by PeterM of my Pentax Macro 50mm f4.0, but I don't use it much.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
OK here's another theory, by analogy with audio reproduction. A number of audiophiles are certain that modern transistorized amplifiers that are highly corrected so that distortion is vanishingly small, do not sound as good as tube amplifiers with measurable distortion in the 0.5 to 1 percent range. This is often attributed to the fact that tube amps produce second harmonic distortion, which is, for some listeners, pleasant and musical. Transistor amps tend to generate odd-order harmonics, not so pleasant.
Now, old lenses tend to have under-corrected spherical aberration. Modern ones are highly corrected to have very little of it. What if the spherical aberrations are what produce the magic that one may feel is missing from shots taken with modern lenses? Could that be what produces the 3-D effect? Or if not spherical aberration, then perhaps one or another of the seven Seidel aberrations that are now corrected out of existence?
Now, old lenses tend to have under-corrected spherical aberration. Modern ones are highly corrected to have very little of it. What if the spherical aberrations are what produce the magic that one may feel is missing from shots taken with modern lenses? Could that be what produces the 3-D effect? Or if not spherical aberration, then perhaps one or another of the seven Seidel aberrations that are now corrected out of existence?
teddy
Jose Morales
I'm all for tube amps 100% or any amp that is point to point - simple designs - 2nd Order Harmonic Distortions seem to add that "magic".
To me, if the lens corrects chromatic aberrations to almost nil - it's a good lens. Then any other character is in my part welcome, astigmatism or vignetting particularly. My simple observance is that lenses with more astigmatism have "3-D Pop" and more palatable Out Of Focus effects.
Whether I'm right or wrong - I don't know.
Interesting topic.
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Yes a lovely bit of conversation where we all can learn something and have some fun.
That said to the OP
Well buddy if you certainly enjoy your AF-D Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 knock yourself out; however its widely known to be the least favorite of the Nikkor 50's and I've had them all (including several AF-(D) versions.
I would heartily endorse doing some reading of Erwin Puts his optical explanations you might find educational on how (mostly Leica) lens are made and the balancing act of optical design.
That being said; I very much do think that there *can be* a noticeable difference in my own preference of certain images made with lenses with *less* glass and truth be told I've been going thru an Elmar phase myself much like Ms. Hill.
From what I've gathered slower designs with fewer elements many be worth examining if this interests anyone. Zeiss Tessar 3.5 vs Planar 2.8 is an example.
That said to the OP
Well buddy if you certainly enjoy your AF-D Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 knock yourself out; however its widely known to be the least favorite of the Nikkor 50's and I've had them all (including several AF-(D) versions.
I would heartily endorse doing some reading of Erwin Puts his optical explanations you might find educational on how (mostly Leica) lens are made and the balancing act of optical design.
That being said; I very much do think that there *can be* a noticeable difference in my own preference of certain images made with lenses with *less* glass and truth be told I've been going thru an Elmar phase myself much like Ms. Hill.
From what I've gathered slower designs with fewer elements many be worth examining if this interests anyone. Zeiss Tessar 3.5 vs Planar 2.8 is an example.
brbo
Well-known
Only shooting pinholes (no "evil glass" and 100% of "information") from now on, 'cause I need that "3d pop"!
(oh, and throw away all your filters, you are losing "information" and "3d pop"! LOTS of it!!!)
(oh, and throw away all your filters, you are losing "information" and "3d pop"! LOTS of it!!!)
gavinlg
Mentor
I have to agree with the original post, the angry photographer, and Yannick Khong - even if I'm not entirely sure of the theory or technical explanation behind it. Not discounting any theory of course - the idea that more glass elements dulling the quality of light transmission sounds theoretically possible to me (not that I'm scientifically proficient in any way), and the theory that ironing out aberrations to such a high degree that the lens performance 'flattens' also seems very plausible to me.
What I do know is that through the years and my experience with lenses, I've realised that there is an era of lenses that tends to give me photographs that I strongly prefer over the more modern and highly corrected bunch of lenses. In general, these lenses tend to:
- Have a lower element count
- Use less or no aspheric or plastic elements (with exceptions - ie 35mm Summicron asph)
- Have original formulations based around the 70s
Another really obvious thing to me is that these differences are more obvious on film cameras rather than digital cameras. Another point is that I really tend to dislike the rendering properties of lenses like the sigma art series or Olympus Zuiko digital lenses that are extremely highly corrected and high element count. Not saying they make bad images, or that good images can't be made with these lenses, just that I strongly prefer how older, more simple lenses translate light, tone and color.
What I do know is that through the years and my experience with lenses, I've realised that there is an era of lenses that tends to give me photographs that I strongly prefer over the more modern and highly corrected bunch of lenses. In general, these lenses tend to:
- Have a lower element count
- Use less or no aspheric or plastic elements (with exceptions - ie 35mm Summicron asph)
- Have original formulations based around the 70s
Another really obvious thing to me is that these differences are more obvious on film cameras rather than digital cameras. Another point is that I really tend to dislike the rendering properties of lenses like the sigma art series or Olympus Zuiko digital lenses that are extremely highly corrected and high element count. Not saying they make bad images, or that good images can't be made with these lenses, just that I strongly prefer how older, more simple lenses translate light, tone and color.