NickTrop
Mentor
Totally disagree. Primes use the same optical designs going back 100 years. Innovation has occurred in electronics (vibration reduction, autofocus), coating, use of cheaper plastic aspherical elements etc. But they're largely the same. Certainly, Nikon has more money to pump into R&D than either Leica or Zeiss (many of their lenses, my understanding is, are made by Cosina -- which is fine...)
I think Leica and Zeiss are economic Veblen goods, by and large, and don't subscribe to the "special sauce" theory especially when it comes to primes. There is a price differential, however, Nikon excels at mass producing lenses (though they do crank out some specialty glass at times). The price differential has to do with two things in the main:
1. A Toyota Corolla costs -- oh, I dunno, $20 -- US? It's cranked out on an assembly line. But if I made the same Corolla in a garage with 5 guys, hand-made? How much would that cost to build? Small production runs simply cost more. Zeiss and Leica are pert much boutique items.
2. And I hate to say this, but one of the biggest grifts and oldest grifts are wine cheats who pour "Two Buck Chuck" (or similar) into expensive bottles. One guy Netflix did a doc on got away with it for years, made millions, until Interpol finally caught up with him. There has also been psychological testing on this where people perceive a wine to actually taste better based on packaging and cost...
... same applies in certain instances with other Veblen goods. ... like camera lenses. If there is a -real- difference it would likely have more to do with the rear element of a rangefinder lens not having to clear a mirror and being closer to the film plane with rangefinders... To what degree that impacts IQ, if at all, is a matter for debate at another time. However, like wines, I think much of the perceived difference in IQ between high-end and competent mass-produced is perceptual and literally influenced by price paid and good "status". Not a judgement -- just part of the human condtion. Or -- whatever floats your boat. If you think they have special sauce, and you have the means, by all means...
Steve M.
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."
That's the long and the short of it. All the computations in the world are no substitute for actually building something and seeing what happens.
This thread is now firmly in the measurebeater category, a term that was possibly coined here I think. Wherever it came from, it fits. Entertaining, but poofy, like eating cotton candy.
That's the long and the short of it. All the computations in the world are no substitute for actually building something and seeing what happens.
This thread is now firmly in the measurebeater category, a term that was possibly coined here I think. Wherever it came from, it fits. Entertaining, but poofy, like eating cotton candy.
Arbitrarium
Well-known
I've certainly shot with f2 lenses that gave more 3D and deep images that some f1.4 lenses. Jupiter 8 is a good example. Lovely separation of background/foreground.
Steve M.
Mentor
Many years ago I bought my first Leica, an M3 with an old 50 DR from the 60's and a 90 Tele Elmerit from the 70's. That was the first time I had seen a 3-D photograph. These are poor drugstore scans from the first roll with no image editing. Other lenses I owned were capable of 3-D photos, some with an even more pronounced 3-D look than the two shots below, but these really got my attention. I don't have any scientific evidence to back it up, but in my experience the amount of elements has nothing to do with whether or not a lens gives a 3-D look. Some do, some don't.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Nick,
Not really. If there were other digital rangefinder cameras on the market you might be able to pin that on Leica, but there aren't, and you can't. Nor are there any real equivalents to (say) the Thambar.
As for Zeiss, you are paying for specialized, small-market designs that no-one else would bother to make, such as to 1,5/50 C-Sonnar or indeed 21/4.5 Biogons. With Zeiss-built Zeiss lenses you are also paying for an unusually high standard of mechanical construction.
Whether you subscribe to "special sauce" or not, it's hard to deny that many (most?) Leica and Zeiss lenses are in the very first rank for resolution, contrast, etc. Are there (for example) Nikkors that are as good? Probably. Who cares? Ultimately, what most of us want from any lens is subjective. As Dr. Nasse pointed out.
Cheers,
R.
Archlich
Well-known
As for the Thambar equivalent, you might or might not have heard of the Muichii Hanakage S1 60mm f/2.2, made in small quantities by a Japanese maker since 2014:
http://www.photo-china.net/sinsaku/s1.html
http://hamashun.org/archives/1997492.html
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2678349@N20/pool/
http://metalmickey.cocolog-nifty.com/photo_is_a_word/s1_60mmf22/index.html
It retails for 89,500 yen.
NickTrop
Mentor
I always enjoy your insights, Mr Hicks, even when I respectfully partially or in full disagree. It's good to engage with you again, and hope you've been well, sir.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
You're right: I hadn't heard of it. Have you tried it? I have several soft focus lenses and have had others: most are or were single-glass.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Nick,
Thank'ee kindly. Alas, not all that well: a fistula a couple of years ago (now all over) followed, just as I was getting over the second operation, by a resurgence of Frances's breast cancer (also now fully sorted).
I trust you have been in better order!
Cheers,
Roger
NickTrop
Mentor
I am truly sorry to learn of this, Roger. I am not a prayerful fellow, and there's nothing that I can do to help -- though I wish I could, other than to say you have my genuine empathy and a sincere desire to see these misfortunes you have been experiencing resolve rapidly and favorably.
Archlich
Well-known
I haven't (not my type of photography), but the guy has the diagram on his website:
Looks genuinely Thambar-ish I suppose.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Roger Hicks
Mentor
I haven't (not my type of photography), but the guy has the diagram on his website:
Looks genuinely Thambar-ish I suppose.
VERY interesting! Essentially a Cooke triplet with the centre glass split into a doublet. Time to hunt out some more lens sections. Thanks!
Cheers,
R.
phofseth
Established
Back to the first post; as a snapshot photographer, I am more interested in the totality than in 3d, nor in where general contrast stops and micro contrast begins. I have however noticed that a lenshood improves contrast and even adding a hand for extra shading seems to make more difference to the result than counting lens elements.
And, welcome back mr. Hicks.
p.
And, welcome back mr. Hicks.
p.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I agree to that sir. Thanks.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
You are free to disagree sir. I respect that however I am not sure if you realized that I agree most of what you mentioned in your first post. That is also what I learned from my father who is a professional old school photographer. On the other hand I think there is a but. Now that the technology advanced, I think companies overcome the disadvantages of having more elements by using better glasses, coatings, designs etc. How many elements/groups that Otus 55mm f1.4 has for example? It seems like a huge lens for a 55mm but it surpasses your nikkor in every field.
Edit: 12 elements in 10 groups.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Glz4kSycX2A
NickTrop
Mentor
Here is an interesting article... A couple quotes that supports my original position
"...adding additional elements, each designed to correct for specific aberrations, lens manufacturers can minimise their effects.
[...]
Adding additional elements isn’t a perfect fix. Every time light is transmitted from one lens to another a little bit of light is lost. The more elements in a lens, the more light and colour information that is lost in transmission. There is a trade off between correcting for optical aberrations and preserving information.
[...]
3D Rendition and Micro-Contrast
Older lenses have far fewer elements than modern lenses. These makes them more prone to optical aberrations and, in particular, it means they often have very soft edges. On the other hand, they can have some incredibly pleasing characteristics. Unlike resolution or sharpness, these characteristics are a lot more difficult to measure with a chart. "
Micro-contrast is the small amounts of tonal and colour variance between details on a subject. It’s an incredibly subtle effect but it is often what sets excellent glass—like Leica, Zeiss, Canon L series, medium-format or large-format lenses—apart from cheaper lenses. Micro-contrast is what gives areas of consistent colour a realistic and accurate texture. It is among the first detail to be lost when light passes through too many elements. "
Worth a read
Here Is What to Look For When You Buy Photography Lenses
https://photography.tutsplus.com/tu...or-when-you-buy-photography-lenses--cms-27047
"...adding additional elements, each designed to correct for specific aberrations, lens manufacturers can minimise their effects.
[...]
Adding additional elements isn’t a perfect fix. Every time light is transmitted from one lens to another a little bit of light is lost. The more elements in a lens, the more light and colour information that is lost in transmission. There is a trade off between correcting for optical aberrations and preserving information.
[...]
3D Rendition and Micro-Contrast
Older lenses have far fewer elements than modern lenses. These makes them more prone to optical aberrations and, in particular, it means they often have very soft edges. On the other hand, they can have some incredibly pleasing characteristics. Unlike resolution or sharpness, these characteristics are a lot more difficult to measure with a chart. "
Micro-contrast is the small amounts of tonal and colour variance between details on a subject. It’s an incredibly subtle effect but it is often what sets excellent glass—like Leica, Zeiss, Canon L series, medium-format or large-format lenses—apart from cheaper lenses. Micro-contrast is what gives areas of consistent colour a realistic and accurate texture. It is among the first detail to be lost when light passes through too many elements. "
Worth a read
Here Is What to Look For When You Buy Photography Lenses
https://photography.tutsplus.com/tu...or-when-you-buy-photography-lenses--cms-27047
chipgreenberg
Well-known
This has been a fun read, but I'm not sure I buy it. (I'd like to, the concept has appeals emotionally)
I haven't shot with lenses newer than about mid nineties, so no "modern" aspheric element super corrected lenses. I have shot with some pretty old lenses.
But, IMHO I think depth, 3/d in a photograph is due more to the same thing that makes other 2d artists' work like painters have dimension. Lighting, perspective, and to some extent shallow plane of focus more than the lens.
I used to shoot a lot of large format table top stuff with G Clarons. The "G" is for graphic and these were flat field lenses corrected for "graphic" work from 1:10 to 1:1. Could I make 3d images with G Clarons? Sure. Proper use of lightening and perspective.
I haven't shot with lenses newer than about mid nineties, so no "modern" aspheric element super corrected lenses. I have shot with some pretty old lenses.
But, IMHO I think depth, 3/d in a photograph is due more to the same thing that makes other 2d artists' work like painters have dimension. Lighting, perspective, and to some extent shallow plane of focus more than the lens.
I used to shoot a lot of large format table top stuff with G Clarons. The "G" is for graphic and these were flat field lenses corrected for "graphic" work from 1:10 to 1:1. Could I make 3d images with G Clarons? Sure. Proper use of lightening and perspective.
michaelwj
----------------
Hi Roger,
It is unfortunate when we lose people close to us, especially when they owe a lunch!
Wavefront propagation is a PITA, mainly because analytical solutions don’t exist and it needs to be numerically “solved”. A large part of my PhD involved Gaussian beam propagation through nonlinear photorefractive materials. Through 5mm of material with one wavelength and full coherence it took about 3 days on a supercomputer. That was about 10 years ago. I’d imagine that wavefront propagation through a lens to get an “image” could be done in a month or so on modern GPU enabled clusters. Not fast enough to test everything, and probably still slower than just making it... but give it another decade...
But we digress...