LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
REE stands for rare earth elements. So what does it define a good glass? Does Leica or Zeiss have better formula of glass to give their famous characters or any glass would work because it is all about lens configurations and coatings?
DominikDUK
Well-known
You can't get rid of the bubbles in the glass at least not in your lifetime or your great great grandchildrens lieftime. Zeiss is owned by Schott Schott was and is the premier manufacturer of high quality optical glass. Zeiss had access to the newest glass types long before anyone else this gave them an edge. Minolta also made their own glass btw.
Glass types are important for the correction of some wavelength so they are very important. Even lens designs of the early 1900's used different glass types.
As for the look isn't the Leica look the result of undercorrection of some optical faults.
Glass types are important for the correction of some wavelength so they are very important. Even lens designs of the early 1900's used different glass types.
As for the look isn't the Leica look the result of undercorrection of some optical faults.
charjohncarter
Mentor
Back to the 3D or 'pop' look; some really poor lenses are great for this. Curvature of focus, naturally poor lenses quality (edge blur), maybe even (as above say) 'under-correction of some optical faults,' less sophisticated quality of the glass maybe in the end encourage 3D and 'pop.'
This is my worst lens but it intrigues me:
Ektar100 by John Carter, on Flickr
This is my worst lens but it intrigues me:
Ektar100 by John Carter, on FlickrEmile de Leon
Well-known
Sometimes..the worse lens..is ...the best..
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
Arent the zeiss lenses especially the m series known for the 3d pop? This thread is overrating that nikkor f1.4
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Ah, thanks. Not an abbreviation with which I was familiar. MichaelWJ pretty much answers that point. Not all "trick" glasses use rare earths, though many do.
Cheers,
R.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Some of the best 3D pop in photos that I seen are 19th century portraits, on wet plate , usually taken outside with a Petzval lens of various makes, from the high class French or British firms or the cheap priced American brands that came with different house brand labels.
Some early 20th century 5x7 Graflex TLRs produce nice 3D pop, again with various lenses from American lens makers, Graflex, Kodak, Bausch and Lomb , Wollensak and still many others made by well known European lens makers.
The long focal length 1930s Agfa Solinars, although they are Tessar clones, are also noted for their 3D pop.
NickTrop
Mentor
No. Not really:
Photodo MTF score
Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D: 4.2
Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/1.0: 4.2
Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4: 4.2
All tied
DXOMark
Carl Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50 ZF.2 Nikon Price $1200 Score: 35
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Price $329 Score: 32 (Same score as newer G series)
Reviews
Image Resources: 4-1/2 stars
Google "Lenses with best micro contrast"
Micro-Contrast, the biggest optical luxury of the world
Nikkor AF 50mm 1.4D.
Nikkor AF 35mm 2D.
Voigtlander SLII 58mm 1.4 Nokton.
Zeiss ZF2 35mm 2.0 Distagon.
https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world
So, this thread isn't overrating the Nikkor 50/1.4D. It's pointing out how underrated this lens is. Kinda like a Seiko automatic -- it just goes. But neither expensive enough to interest the Veblen watch collectors nor old school cool enough to interest hipsters. Doesn't have the coolness factor of the pre-AI, AI, AI-S klunky metal rabbit ears lenses -- it (shriek!) autofocuses, and (shriek!) is mass produced(!), and (shriek!) has a plastic barrel(!), and (shriek) no exotic glass or aspherical elements(!) -- Just an unassuming, classic 50/1.4 throwback that renders beautifully.
michaelwj
----------------
“Good glass” is glass of the type you want that is uniform in composition and non crystalline, but it’s not always the case wrt bubbles etc.
“Exotic glass” is usually glass where the refraction and dispersion characteristics have been pushed, I.e., low retraction with high dispersion or the other way around.
Then we have coatings, and as Roger correctly pointed out the difference between number of elements and number of groups. Older lenses (pre-coatings) tried to minimise the number of air-glass interfaces, and putting elements in groups was one way to do that.
charjohncarter
Mentor
I'm ignorant on this subject, but I wonder how Thorium lenses (I have two) hold up in your analysis with regards to 3Dpop.
And Nick Trop; my 1971 Seiko still working and used daily (taken with a Thorium lens; no pop here):
TMY-2 HC110h Rodinal by John Carter, on Flickr
NickTrop
Mentor
Yay! A Bell-Matic! The 7S26 movement is a real work horse. Love Seiko (and Orient) automatic watches. If interested, a few years ago Seiko came out with their "Recraft" line where they did a real nice job updating the old "groovy" (and sometimes "out there") 70's Seiko designs, keeping their spirit but very wearable today. Well made and cheap (for automatic watch) $100-$150. Here's the one I have -- a brushed gold tonneau:
michaelwj
----------------
I feel I'm just as ignorant on 3D pop as the next person. As you noted before, it is more about things like field curvature and camera-subject-background relationships.
The "exoticness" of the glass just allows simplification of individual elements, rather than any specific ethereal feature like 3D pop. Low dispersion - high refraction glass is really just the chemical version of an aspheric surface.
On a side note, rare earth elements (the lanthanides and a few others - thorium is an actinide and therefore not a REE) are actually very abundant, in fact they are all more abundant that gold, silver, platinum, palladium, mercury and plenty of others. They aren't exotic at all, just hard to isolate form their natural forms.
charjohncarter
Mentor
Yay! A Bell-Matic! The 7S26 movement is a real work horse. Love Seiko (and Orient) automatic watches. If interested, a few years ago Seiko came out with their "Recraft" line where they did a real nice job updating the old "groovy" (and sometimes "out there") 70's Seiko designs, keeping their spirit but very wearable today. Well made and cheap (for automatic watch) $100-$150. Here's the one I have -- a brushed gold tonneau:
Great photo, maybe I'll pull mine.
And thanks michaelwj, very infomative.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
"Pop" is the product of having a subject that is uniformly sharp against a background that is uniformly soft (usually because it is a bit to the rear). Low-element-count lenses tend to give the illusion of more "pop" but not likely the reality. My observations:
- People tend to shoot their "pop" pictures wide-open because they perceive that shallow depth of field provides subject isolation. That's not really how it works; the major determinant is distance to the background. With enough of a distance between foreground and background, the aperture is only really controlling how much of the subject (in the foreground) will be in focus.
- Simpler lenses tend to be slower, which means when shot wide-open, they will have more depth of field at and immediately around the subject. A person's face does not look "poppy" if the eyes are in focus and the focus rolls off elsewhere because it's a large-bore lens.
- Stop your f/1.4 lens down to 2.8, and there is no palpable difference in "pop" from the slower/simpler lens. Maybe a tiny bit of extra flare, theoretically, to lower contrast. But in an apples to apples comparison you likely will be shooting comparisons including the simpler, slower lens in brighter, more contrasty light. That's a place where an f/16 single-element meniscus lens can compete with a complex lens.
Likewise, if you've shot a pre-ASPH Summilux and the ASPH version with almost twice the elements, there is no question that the newer one makes for much crisper, isolated close-up subjects.
Dante
- People tend to shoot their "pop" pictures wide-open because they perceive that shallow depth of field provides subject isolation. That's not really how it works; the major determinant is distance to the background. With enough of a distance between foreground and background, the aperture is only really controlling how much of the subject (in the foreground) will be in focus.
- Simpler lenses tend to be slower, which means when shot wide-open, they will have more depth of field at and immediately around the subject. A person's face does not look "poppy" if the eyes are in focus and the focus rolls off elsewhere because it's a large-bore lens.
- Stop your f/1.4 lens down to 2.8, and there is no palpable difference in "pop" from the slower/simpler lens. Maybe a tiny bit of extra flare, theoretically, to lower contrast. But in an apples to apples comparison you likely will be shooting comparisons including the simpler, slower lens in brighter, more contrasty light. That's a place where an f/16 single-element meniscus lens can compete with a complex lens.
Likewise, if you've shot a pre-ASPH Summilux and the ASPH version with almost twice the elements, there is no question that the newer one makes for much crisper, isolated close-up subjects.
Dante
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
So do you partly agree on OP's point or disagree. I partly agree. It is always good to have fewer elements or glass-air surfaces as in every medium light passes, there is some information lost. However due to technological advances, it is probably compensated by improving on other things like glass composition, coating type and aspherical surfaces etc. Would you agree?
Roger, would you agree to that?
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
Ok, my nick is LeicaForever but dont get me wrong I am not a high profile Leica fan but I do think that Leica and Zeiss are specialty products and they know somethings others dont know so that is why they are doing great for so many years. It is not always MTF charts and numbers. Below is my test of 45mm f2 Contax-Zeiss lens (one of the sharpest lenses produced-known so on internet). I put it on a Sony nex and took a shot from my balcony. I didnt know that there are wind turbines on the mountains 36km away from me until I took this photo. Now that is what I call, resolution power.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ac_q-7xseq6H7I3Mf4qnWOGcjQaikr1V/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sg8f0ijRBIjYvkPsujeeC2vZd9iEIQx9/view?usp=sharing
Roger Hicks
Mentor
The late Dr. Hubert Nasse, lens designer at Zeiss, said "The only way to see how a lens behaves is to make it. You can do all the simulations you like, but you won't know until you build it."
In other words, NOBODY knows.
Cheers,
R
In other words, NOBODY knows.
Cheers,
R
michaelwj
----------------
This was said a while ago, and if they can’t already I’d say we’re not too far off where simulations can be done with respect to how the lens will render a scene. It’s not that hard, just computationally very very intensive (it’s just lots of ray tracing with different object distances after all).
But I suppose then we get into highly subjective measures, so we don’t know anything anyway.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
p.s. Milvus 50mm f1.4 scores 41 not 35. And its sharpness is 33 compared to 22 on Nikon. It has got better vignetting too.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Michael,
Maybe 3-4 years; that was still his view when I last talked with him shortly before he died, which was in 2016. As for ray tracing, I'd be surprised, as wave-front calculations are to the best of my understanding the main tool nowadays.
As for "highly subjective", yes, well, that's what bokeh and "pop" and "character" are, and exactly what Dr. Nasse was talking about. He said something to the effect that you can calculate all the objective stuff, but not the "look" of the lens.
I shall miss him. He died owing me a lunch, too. The last time we saw him, we spent so much time talking about lens designs that by the rime we went out for lunch all the restaurants were closed and there weren't even any sandwiches left. "Next time", he said...
Cheers,
R.