The Problem with Modern Lenses.. transfered to those new to view camera image making

[Bernice Loui]

Due to recent events, been using the digital and 35mm film camera lots while out on re-hab walks. Light weight portability is an important factor for these image goals. This brewed interest in the current digital camera lens offerings.. leading to do web readings of current lens fashions. Appears current digital camera lens offerings are much about that idealized optical performance with "sharp", high contrast, zero distortion at all lens apertures and all that same eye poking image fashion of today.

Noted in this article from some years ago:
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

Current best of the high tech lenses for digital, no thanks.

Question is, how much of this image goal fashion and habit is carried over to those new to the cosmos of view camera?
Much like favored view camera lenses, the digital and 35mm film camera lenses favored are "vintage" manual focus or second generation canon EF lenses.
Even knowing well the limitations of on-line digital images, the modern Sigma Art, Sony GM and similar current "state of the art" digital lenses have zero appeal. Images made by these image systems appear clinical-cold, artificial, flat, cartoon like and un-real in too many ways.


Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

There's no disputing tastes.

[Jody_S]

Step 1- Buy a dSLR or mirrorless state-of-the-art 40+ MP camera and lens for $6-12K
Step 2- Buy a $24 ring light off Amazon
Step 3- Using camera on full auto, take selfie using your remote control and live view app on your phone
Step 4- Upload your photo to Instagram at 480x640 pixels, applying 'Beauty' and 'Polaroid' filters
Step 5- Brag about your state-of-the-art gear and how much you spent on it.

I remain surprised at how many members here buy the latest digicams. No offense meant, I find I keep accumulating them myself, but usually 6 or 10 year-old cameras and lenses I pick up for a song, and I do enjoy using them from time to time. And unless I put considerable effort into my large format craft, the pics I take with those little computer thingys with a lens are consistently better than anything I can do in LF. So are my phone pics. We are the keepers of a dying art, the world has moved on. It's not like the digital crowd are at any risk of running out of electrons, either.

To the topic at hand, I routinely sell obsolete small format lenses on fleabay to people who want to use them on their latest digital contraption. Looking for something different than that ultra-processed, saturated and sharpened look. So their little computers dutifully process the images they get from a 50 year-old Soligor lens, and try to turn it into the exact same image as if they'd used their expensive new 'digital' lenses.

[Corran]

Garbage article.

BTW, a friend of mine makes beautiful portraits using mostly a 35mm Sigma Art lens. I've seen plenty of excellent photographs made with them, and any "look" to them is more related to the imaging system and editing - not to mention lighting and environment.

There is nothing to how many "elements" or glass types that make a lens better or worse. There's certainly character differences and one is free to think certain styles of lenses suit their way of seeing and shooting.

[Tin Can]

I bought this and a 50

TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 Lens for Nikon Z (Black)

Still testing

Very affordable

[Tin Can]

I usually buy a new Digi NIKON every few years

I bought my $1000 Z fc as an introduction to new tech

I love the video eyepiece as it easily compensates for my fading vision

I am slowly learning what it can do, kinda disappointed it cannot write directly to my toy printer, but my phone can help

Soon I will put it ONTO 200-500 which becomes 750 mm

I am just happy to be STILL alive and playing

[Sal Santamaura]

There's no disputing tastes.

Just as long as they're put forth as "I like this, don't like that" and not "there's a problem with what I don't like." In the latter case, disputation is more than justified. :)


Garbage article...

Well, Bryan, I'm not so sure denigrating landfill material that way is fair to rubbish. :D


...There is nothing to how many "elements" or glass types that make a lens better or worse. There's certainly character differences and one is free to think certain styles of lenses suit their way of seeing and shooting.Correct. For example, I vomit at the sight of "swirly bokeh" but it's fine for those who love a petzval or vitax. To each her or his own.

[Michael R]

Baloney. Don’t like sharp/well corrected lenses? Easy to fix. Not easy to go the other way.

[Bernice Loui]

Canon introduced their K35 cinema lens set in the mid 1970's (based on Canon FD-L series 35mm camera lenses) , granted an Academy Award in 1977 for their optical design. More than a few famous films were made with these K35 cinema lens sets.

Current rehoused sets are sell for well into six figures of $ or €
https://www.kitplus.com/FORSALE/Cameras_and_Accessories/Lenses/Canon_/K-35_TLS_Rehoused/215240.html

Typical rental cost about 5,000 U$D per day.

There are other "vintage" optically inferior lenses being rehoused and making high $ cinema and other major media releases today.

Believe there will be extensive post processing involved during the visual release process. If the idealized image goals can be achieved in post production via software, why is this and other "vintage" lenses experiencing demand for their "inferior" optical performance _?_


Bernice





Garbage article.

BTW, a friend of mine makes beautiful portraits using mostly a 35mm Sigma Art lens. I've seen plenty of excellent photographs made with them, and any "look" to them is more related to the imaging system and editing - not to mention lighting and environment.

There is nothing to how many "elements" or glass types that make a lens better or worse. There's certainly character differences and one is free to think certain styles of lenses suit their way of seeing and shooting.




Baloney. Don’t like sharp/well corrected lenses? Easy to fix. Not easy to go the other way.

[Jody_S]

I am just happy to be STILL alive and playing

This man has found the secret of life.

[Tin Can]

Amatour film makers became very interested in early Pentax 50mm and drove the prices up, 2 decades ago

I have a Pentax and Leica R to Z adapters

Soon I shoot and compare, with Leica R, NIKON, China, old Pentax

all on the same new Digi



I seek light said the blind man

Cheer up folks

Please

[Tin Can]

I always have woken up happy

but a couple years I had 2 wives that loved to yell at me at 4 am

Fortunately as child I got up at 4 am to read with the dog

Then father got rid of the dog

asshole


This man has found the secret of life.

[ic-racer]

The Problem with Modern Lenses.. transfered to those new to view camera image making
What is the problem? A lens can't be 'too sharp' anymore than one's tripod can't be 'too stable.'

[Jody_S]

I seek light said the blind man

Cheer up folks

Please

Do you happen to have a twin brother?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXp1CQA8YDw&t=70s&ab_channel=RodneyNorman

[Leszek Vogt]

Believe there will be extensive post processing involved during the visual release process. If the idealized image goals can be achieved in post production via software, why is this and other "vintage" lenses experiencing demand for their "inferior" optical performance _?_

Bernice, sometimes it's familiarity of *certain look* and wanting to emulate or adapt, sometimes cinematographers may have seen others use (for instance) Schneiders, Canon, Cook and even Leica mot. pic optics and they still may prefer to use OLDER Nikkor still glass....it's all relative. Lets go to example of "Deliverance", Vilmos Zsigmond stated that most of the film was shot with a 50mm (Panavision), since he found it impeccable....it sure worked for him.

But, in the era of film one had to understand the tech factors involved, not to mention grain structure of individual film. I still think that serious production will require light tests and thorough eq/glass tests before any actors are photo/filmed/videod. No doubt that some of it will be left to post production.

[Mark Sawyer]

The performance difference between a 1980's "vintage" computer-designed multi-coated lens and a 2021 "modern" computer-designed multi-coated lens is less than negligible.

Most photographers using 1970's "vintage" lenses are doing so because they think it's "cool".

[Nodda Duma]

The performance difference between a 1980's "vintage" computer-designed multi-coated lens and a 2021 "modern" computer-designed multi-coated lens is less than negligible.

Most photographers using 1970's "vintage" lenses are doing so because they think it's "cool".

Optics aren’t designed by a computer. The drudgery of ray trace calculations is performed on a computer, but there is definitely a person designing those optics.

The difference between optics designed today and optics designed in the 1980s is

- Different selection of glasstypes (significant in some applications)
- Reduced cost of aspheric fabrication (and lens fabrication in general)
- Better design for tolerances capability
- Improved design, machining and specifying of mechanical components.

The rest of the improvements is increased processor speed allowing the designer to more efficiently explore the design space and find improvements within the design project’s schedule and budget.

Bernice, lenses haven’t gotten sharper. Ref. The f.64 club. They have simply been designed for the modern imager. A print from a stopped-down Tessar on a large format camera is just as sharp (if not more so) as that formed from a modern lens and an APS sensor. If you want a softer look you use a different lens. Modern photography is no different. :)

[Tin Can]

Not that I know of

He is as wise as Mr Natural (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Natural_(character))

I used to inhale, but cannot handle today's weeds

Jimi had it right, with his last song (https://genius.com/The-jimi-hendrix-experience-voodoo-child-slight-return-lyrics)


Do you happen to have a twin brother?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXp1CQA8YDw&t=70s&ab_channel=RodneyNorman

[Tin Can]

Yes,

The Last Dance on this forum is fighting for any life

We fiddle as Rome burns


Optics aren’t designed by a computer. The drudgery of ray trace calculations is performed on a computer, but there is definitely a person designing those optics.

The difference between optics designed today and optics designed in the 1980s is

- Different selection of glasstypes (significant in some applications)
- Reduced cost of aspheric fabrication (and lens fabrication in general)
- Better design for tolerances capability
- Improved design, machining and specifying of mechanical components.

The rest of the improvements is increased processor speed allowing the designer to more efficiently explore the design space and find improvements within the design project’s schedule and budget.

Bernice, lenses haven’t gotten sharper. Ref. The f.64 club. They have simply been designed for the modern imager. A print from a stopped-down Tessar on a large format camera is just as sharp (if not more so) as that formed from a modern lens and an APS sensor. If you want a softer look you use a different lens. Modern photography is no different. :)

[pgk]

The difference between optics designed today and optics designed in the 1980s is:

Aren't some/mamy modern photographic lenses designed with some degree of software correction 'built in' to them too? Its difficult to determine, even using a RAW file, just how much processing has been carried out in the camera, especially when many lenses will only actually work on the cameras they were designed for, or via 'smart' adapters on others. Older, more mechanical lenses have to compete on purely optical terms with modern digital offerings which use software to maximise their performance. Both have their place and despite everything, some older lenses perform surprisingly well even by our current 'standards' (if that is the right word). The goal of 'perfect' optics has been with us since photography began. The idea of a lens being simply 'fit for purpose' still seems to pass many by.

[Nodda Duma]

Oh..very good question. Smart phone optics are an example of this, where image processing is used to enhance the image quality for display on a smart phone screen. This makes up in large part for the size of the pixels (they are so small tgat they butt up against physical limitations due to diffractive effects). This is a great example of work performed at the system level to flow down requirements in the interest of reducing cost, weight, etc. However, the optics themselves are still very good all things considered. The original design was brilliant. Here is a white paper discussing the design considerations. If you stay awake while reading, you will see the optical performance still stands on its own.

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/02/Advanced-Optical-Technologies-Optical-design-of-camera-optics-for-mobile-phones.pdf



For consumer photography where for example lenses can be swapped out, the design team cannot assume reliance on image processing. In addition, video lenses must provide the image quality as real-time image processing at video frame rates is not (yet) possible. It’s too processor-intensive. The optics that I design are the same way, but also with the twist that the potential for image artifacts causing issues at the system level is not acceptable. So image enhancement is not used in the systems I design for, and in fact with very few exceptions can image enhancement be relied upon to relieve the design requirements on the optics. IMO that will be true for the next 15-20 years or so.

In engineering design there is no magic. So anything that sounds magical is exactly that. :)



Aren't some/mamy modern photographic lenses designed with some degree of software correction 'built in' to them too? Its difficult to determine, even using a RAW file, just how much processing has been carried out in the camera, especially when many lenses will only actually work on the cameras they were designed for, or via 'smart' adapters on others. Older, more mechanical lenses have to compete on purely optical terms with modern digital offerings which use software to maximise their performance. Both have their place and despite everything, some older lenses perform surprisingly well even by our current 'standards' (if that is the right word). The goal of 'perfect' optics has been with us since photography began. The idea of a lens being simply 'fit for purpose' still seems to pass many by.

[Havoc]

For consumer photography where for example lenses can be swapped out, the design team cannot assume reliance on image processing.

I fear that reality isn't agreeing with you, some lenses are designed so that the last corrections are software inside the camera. The camera has a profile of the lens on board.
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/in-camera-lens-corrections/
https://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/nikon-and-dslr-camera-faq/what-lenses-are-supported.html
https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00018031

[neil poulsen]

. . . I am just happy to be STILL alive and playing

Isn't that the truth! :D

Me too.

[Bernice Loui]

Digital imager optics has gone FAR beyond correcting optical "issues" in a given lens, software and related corrections are well into altering the image recorded then presented to the viewer... as exampled in the modern cell or "smart" phone. While the imager lenses in these mobile devices are remarkable, the lesser discussed aspect of these mobile devices are their post image recorded image processing. Yes, the image presented to the viewer has been altered in ways decided by software creators and many others involved, question remains.. What were their choices and how they arrived at these choices.

Question remains, a good number of folks that have done significant amounts of digital imager based image making or roll film (35mm / 120) have migrated to this view camera stuff. How many of their image making habits and ways related to the modern uber definition lenses with or without software fixes are carried over to their journey into this view camera stuff.

~Brings up another aspect of this question, given the current generation of software control over their images, how much of these habits-ways and work flow is imposed on sheet film based view camera image making.. Are the beliefs that the lacking sheet film image can be absolutely "fixed up" (sharpness, contrast, color "correction", and LOTs more) via software means to achieve their image goals in place of getting most if not all of the image goals proper at the moment of film exposure then processing.. Lenses and all are part of this.


Bernice

[neil poulsen]

Here are some of my random thoughts on color these days . . .

FORGET ANALOG: I've abandoned analog color, either color negative or color transparency. The former is hit or miss, mostly miss when it comes to getting good results from scanning. And color transparency has so little latitude, getting a well exposed transparency also becomes hit or miss. My optimum analog situation is being able to go into a "U-Develop" facility to use their individual darkrooms, while they provide the the processor to for C-type prints. Needless to say,that option no longer exists. (At least in Portland, Oregon.)

Of course, there's the time honored technique of taking multiple exposures and pushing or pulling a second transparency after seeing the first. But film has become so expensive!

FORGET DSLR's: I've also abandoned upgrading my DSLR, which given sufficient light, has produced decent results. My problem with DSLR's is the following. Photograph any scene with overcast sky, and it's flare city. A DSLR's sensor chamber is wrapped so tightly around the sensor, light from any scene can't help but bounce off the chamber sides and onto the sensor. Flare becomes unavoidable, and I HATE FLARE! (My own analysis.)

MIRRORLESS CAMERAS BEAR INVESTIGATION: Mirrorless cameras like the Sone A7r series get around the problems that I have with DSLR's, so they bear investigation.

MF DIGITAL: You might consider medium format digital? I purchased a Phase One P45+ for what I thought to be a reasonable price. And, that was a couple of years ago. (I began a thread on this in the Lounge.) It involves view cameras, which is nice. And an MF view camera can also capture images on black and white film. So, both options in the same, smallish package.

A P45+ was just right for me. At 39 megapixels, it allows one to comfortably print up to 16x20. Charles Cramer, a very well known analog (Kodak dye transfer) photographer, purchased a P45, when he transitioned totally to digital. One nice thing about Phase One, purchase a P45+ (and likely other PO digital backs), and it's not necessary to pay for a Capture One license, which is Phase One's very capable imaging software for converting Phase One image files.

I only use only view camera lenses with my MF back, though as we all know, special super-duper "digital" lenses are available at higher prices. I've been happy with the results. (But of course, it's only color, versus black and white.) One nice thing about regular VC lenses, image circles are larger than those for newer digital optics.

A couple of trade-offs with MF digital, and in particular, a P45+. Newer backs have live view that enables one to focus using the screen on the back. But even used, these newer backs are expensive. I can also focus on a screen, but only if I tether to a computer. In the field, I'm very happy to focus using a ground glass. I really don't think it matters, except maybe for something very exacting, like copying artwork? And, I don' do that stuff.

A second trade off for MF backs in general, is finding a super-wide lens to include in one's kit. I lucked out and purchased a Rodenstock 35mm f4.5 for <$1K, which amazingly also covers up to 6x9 film. And even with a 35mm lens, one needs a camera that can accommodate the narrow flange focal length. But, one could also stitch with a 45mm or 47mm lens.

A medium format digital kit is heavier than 35mm. But, I have a golf cart that I use with mine. Works great.

Anyway, it's worth some thought.

[Corran]

Are the beliefs that the lacking sheet film image can be absolutely "fixed up" (sharpness, contrast, color "correction", and LOTs more) via software means to achieve their image goals in place of getting most if not all of the image goals proper at the moment of film exposure then processing

Whilst looking at a finished print, why should one care whether or not the contrast was increased via using a newer, higher-contrast lens, a longer development time, or a slider in software after scanning?

Does this fundamentally change the way you view a print? Are there any rules that state one way of increasing contrast (as just an example of "image manipulation") is the "correct" way of doing it?

[Drew Wiley]

What is "digital" color photography? I've never heard of it. My color darkroom doesn't have a radio in it, so I never listen to such teenage jargon, whatever it means. Is 'analog" the same thing as AM or FM? Maybe that's where I'm confused. Never mind ... I don't like the noisy sound of any of those terms. Let me print in peace (if the damn roll of color paper would just arrive). .... well, need to do a small roof repair this afternoon anyway.

[Sal Santamaura]

What is "digital" color photography? I've never heard of it...The best there is in color. Perhaps now that you've heard of it, you'll develop an appreciation for how much better it is than chemical color.

Of course, they all fade. So, if so-called "artists" seek to create something permanent, they'll photograph on polyester-base black and white film. :)

[Tin Can]

Not a whit

These dinosaurs attempt shame

all is fair in love, war and imaging

Judge not that thee be judged I said to myself

Faulty humans


Whilst looking at a finished print, why should one care whether or not the contrast was increased via using a newer, higher-contrast lens, a longer development time, or a slider in software after scanning?

Does this fundamentally change the way you view a print? Are there any rules that state one way of increasing contrast (as just an example of "image manipulation") is the "correct" way of doing it?

[Mark Sawyer]

Optics aren’t designed by a computer. The drudgery of ray trace calculations is performed on a computer, but there is definitely a person designing those optics.


Splitting hairs, like hammers don't drive nails, people drive nails. Computers have been used heavily by those designing and redesigning optics for a long time.

Bernice's original question was "Question is, how much of this image goal fashion and habit is carried over to those new to the cosmos of view camera?" Fashion changes regardless, but I doubt one could identify any meaningful fashion difference between images from a 1980's lens and a modern lens owed to changes in optical design. I do think a small segment of photographers is aware of the aesthetics of "less-than-perfect" lenses, which has been going on through the Pictorialist era through the Diana cameras and now the Holgas, Lensbabies, Lomo lenses, etc. And now the increasingly popular digital filters, apps, plug-ins, post-processing, etc. are doing the same thing even with phone-camera images, generally with about as much artistic intent as the apps that add cat noses, ears, and whiskers to people's portraits.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, let's see.... digital photography has been around two or three decades. The dinosaurs lasted many millions of years, and turtles and crocodiles were in existence even before them, and are still around. Certain designs just make sense. And art? I'd rather see Lascaux in person (though now that's sealed off from the public, and one has to see it in a faux replication), than every "street art" neo-Phenom splatter in every museum in the world. Some folks got it right the first time, and long before Lascaux itself. Latest/greatest technology is a poor substitute for real home cooking. Choose your kitchen appliances according to your own needs, and use em well. But the gadgetry itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Likewise, fine lenses. I use em, but they don't do the work by themselves.
I do appreciate that Bosch convection oven behind me, which will do the turkey on Thursday in less than an hour and a half!

But I do have my own hypocrisies. Responding to Mark, hammer's DON'T drive nails. Not anymore. Nail guns do. I had a lot to do with establishing that trend in the first place, at least here in the Western half of the US. Either adapt or go extinct, financially, if you were a contractor. But I'm not a commercial photographer, so can take my time and still do real-deal home cooking in the darkroom the way I want to. Optimal quality is the incentive, and that's how I do it. No commercial lab can afford the time.

[Nodda Duma]

I fear that reality isn't agreeing with you, some lenses are designed so that the last corrections are software inside the camera. The camera has a profile of the lens on board.
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/in-camera-lens-corrections/
https://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/nikon-and-dslr-camera-faq/what-lenses-are-supported.html
https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00018031


I suppose it depends on your definition: Marketing terminology or what designers identify as reliance on image processing to relieve the burden on the optics. I can tell you as an active, practicing, industry-aware lens designer who knows what would be required to reduce the burden on the optics to deliver performance, these examples aren’t it. Cell phone lenses, yes. Some other specific applications and research, yes. Distortion and vignetting correction, and scaling of the RGB channels downstream of demosaicing, not really, no.


Regardless, as Corran states above, all that really matters is the final print. Well, aside from how much it cost you to get that print, if you have a budget. Worth mentioning because cost drives everything including modern lens design.

[jp]

I love large format soft focus, and gentle focus like the tessars and that sort of thing...

For digital I love the Sigma art lenses.... They are crisp where they are in focus, and buttery smooth (like a 190 optar rb graflex slr but not quite as tasty) when out of focus. The type of thing we like on narrow depth of field LF (but without the movements and such). I actually got my first nicer Sigma lens when my Nikon lens was flaring badly from bright light sources with green reflections. Sigma despite being more complicated had zero flare compared to the otherwise sharp nikon 50mm. They are out to beat camera manufacturers in the lens business, not just get a piece of the pie.

For less than perfect, the Lenbaby products are pretty great. The Velvet56 is every bit the challenge as a large format soft focus to get the subject matter, aperture, light just right and color even adds more challenge. It's not a substiute for LF soft focus which are much more versatile and subtle, just another tool.

Regarding the question about digital tinkering with LF image... No problem playing with contrast and color and some tone adjustment in photoshop. These could be done in the darkroom if that were the final product, but a paper print isn't always the final product.

[Oren Grad]

You can believe what the marketing fluff says, but I stand by my educated claim.

I suspect there's some confusion in communication here.

Just one of many, many examples:

https://opticallimits.com/m43/840-olympus17f18?start=1

[Drew Wiley]

The capture information is the real information. One cannot better that, but merely disguise it, like with digital sharpening, for example - you aren't adding information or resolution that isn't there, but merely rearranging it to simulate something else, at some kind of overall penalty, depending on how much you have to begin with. Of course, I'm not stating that in any absolute sense. For quite awhile I've known about cameras capable of splitting apart specific wavelengths and reassembling them with magnetically controlled mirrors to more acute standards than conventional lenses allow by themselves. That's done in high-end light microscopy as well as big budget astronomical applications, and no doubt military applications, all of which Jason is no doubt far more competent to explain that I am.

But cost and bulk-wise, it's unlikely that kind of thing is going to reach down into conventional photography anytime soon, if ever. Software voodoo is something else, valuable in certain workflows, on-board or not, but very often just a sales gimmick aimed at the "latest and greatest" consumer electronics addicts. I'll take the word of actual engineers over marketing types any day of the week. If one likes that kind of thing, why not? It's your money. I'm pleased to just keep doing what I've been doing for decades with large format film, with lenses already fully adequate for that application, and a well-equipped darkroom.

The one exception would be the cataloging of my collection digitally, which I'll need to ask some relevant questions about once I reach that point. But the digital camera itself has already been calibrated and lensed for my new deluxe copystand, so I'm 75% there already. Now it's mainly about storage options. But the quality standard is cataloging only, relative to estate planning, not for digital printing applications, so jpeg is fine. And my good ole 55/2.8 macro Nikkor is plenty adequate.

[Sal Santamaura]

The capture information is the real information. One cannot better that, but merely disguise it, like with digital sharpening, for example - you aren't adding information or resolution that isn't there, but merely rearranging it to simulate something else, at some kind of overall penalty, depending on how much you have to begin with...Just like how some people do unsharp masking in the darkroom using registration punches and additional sheets of film. :)

[pdmoylan]

I can't imagine a world without lens multicoating (love to shoot subjects backlit) and at least aspherical lens elements to correct spherical aberation and astigmatism in camera lenses (and to the extent possible, reduction in field curvature). Don't most of us want lenses where edges, corners and center resolution are comparable so that when we stop down to say F5.6-8 (4x5, F22), most everything in sharp focus assuming adequate DOF? Do we want to see lens distortion greater than say 2% and vignetting at diffraction-limited apertures? And if you shoot color, isn't it better to eliminate longitudinal chromatic aberation as well? Why did Schneider and Rodenstock introduce LF lenses incorporating special glass using the same 6 element plasmat designs, but to improve contrast and line pair definition (though this is perhaps less evident with B&W photography)?

The referenced Nikon 35mm F2D in the article has most of the aforementioned aberation issues (add coma) which lens manufacturers now mostly mitigate with new tech, while simultaneously reducing size and weight. Intense competition is giving us lenses designers could only have dreamed of before the 1960s. Who would want any of those aberations except someone who has either found ways around the worst of them, using older lens designs and doesn't want to change or can't afford to change, or, one is trying to fight the trend and state that old is better and allow the lens aberations to define their "style", rather than the photographer using lenses to define their vision. Ok, so for some work you prefer retro but for commercial portraits you use a modern Sigma. Does it make you better? Does it matter? No, just a new talking point (it's like listening to Leica photogs comparing various noct lenses).

I despise wasting time on lenses that can't get me images I have in mind. So I only use lenses that will provide an advantage to realize my objectives. Trial and error. But if you stop down (as do virtually all of the greats - name one famous photog that shot wide open most of the time), lens differences are less obvious. It's all those lens junkies that think they need to shoot wide open that drive me crazy. No bokeh at F22 on a 4x5, sorry.

I draw the line with lenses like say the Leica Q2 28mm which has upwards of 13% actual distortion which is "corrected" with software and thereby loses acuity on the edges (and beware those corners notwithstanding). Not the best landscape choice for sure. Same is true with the Leica APO 28mm SL. Yet Leica is promulgating shooting wide open (why stop down they say, the lens is sharpest wide open). Crazy.

But there is no perfect lens (except a few LF choices, but you have to get to F22+ to realize best results).

But "accurate" color is the continuing issue with digital IMO. Retro lenses don't get us any closer to reality.

[Jody_S]

Don't most of us want lenses where edges, corners and center resolution are comparable so that when we stop down to say F5.6-8 (4x5, F22), most everything in sharp focus assuming adequate DOF?

(...)

Retro lenses don't get us any closer to reality.

I'm not trying to reproduce reality. I'm trying to show how I see the world. If all I wanted was the above, I would have given up LF years ago, because digital now has a clear advantage.

[Lachlan 717]

I’ll take my Sigma 14mm f1.8 for Astro over some less wide/less sharp/slower lens from 1980.

I’ll take my Nikkor 19mm PC-E over the Nikkor over the 28mm PC.

And I’ll take all of my other “modern” lenses with their (historically) low comatic and chromatic aberration as well.

Nostalgic yet crap lenses are not for my SF needs…

[pdmoylan]

I'm not trying to reproduce reality. I'm trying to show how I see the world. If all I wanted was the above, I would have given up LF years ago, because digital now has a clear advantage.

But isn’t photography by definition illustrative, not impressionistic? Simply because we ‘tone’ a print or add red filter to taking lens, it doesn’t detract from the image being illustration? As I mentioned before, unless we are choosing to define every centimeter of an image, with photography is not possible unless we are manipulating via PS etc, it still is a snapshot of reality. No way around it. If we want the distortion or flare from a retro lens to affect the image, it does not push the medium to “alt” reality.

Since I am keenly enamored of the natural landscape in all it’s infinite variety, I have tried to remain faithful to what my eye sees - wyswyg.

[paulbarden]

What is the problem? A lens can't be 'too sharp' anymore than one's tripod can't be 'too stable.'

There is such a thing as harsh, contrasty sharpness that certain lenses exhibit, and it can be unsuitable for certain applications. I’ve discovered that my Symmar-S 240 is brutally sharp when used for wet plate collodion work: hard and clinical, and it gives plates an unpleasantly harsh look. This is what I think of when someone says a lens is “too sharp” for their tastes. Many of my favorites are older, uncoated lenses.

[paulbarden]

I can't imagine a world without lens multicoating (love to shoot subjects backlit) and at least aspherical lens elements to correct spherical aberation and astigmatism in camera lenses (and to the extent possible, reduction in field curvature). Don't most of us want lenses where edges, corners and center resolution are comparable so that when we stop down to say F5.6-8 (4x5, F22), most everything in sharp focus assuming adequate DOF?

I won’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly have little interest in the sterile perfection of such things. I’d be bored senseless if that’s all I pursued.


But "accurate" color is the continuing issue with digital IMO. Retro lenses don't get us any closer to reality.

Not all of us want to illustrate “reality”. Personally, I’m not enamored of “just the facts” image making. You make it sound like that is the only worthwhile goal in photography.

[Ari]

I like what's being offered these days in the digital world.
There are far too many pixel-peepers around, as always, so the pointless hunt for perfection continues. Beyond that there are some truly beautiful images being made, with craft and skill, and with digital cameras.
The Fuji GFX 50S is proving to be a lighter digital version of the Pentax 67II, and only marginally more complicated to use.
The lenses and camera combine to make rich, detailed, but not bitingly-sharp, images. Much like the smooth P67 lenses of yore.

How much of the pixel peeping carries over to LF? Probably lots, but old-time LFers can be just as bad sometimes.
Eventually, hopefully, they realize that focus and sharpness are vastly overrated, and they then settle down to make some decent images.

[paulbarden]

How much of the pixel peeping carries over to LF? Probably lots, but old-time LFers can be just as bad sometimes.
Eventually, hopefully, they realize that focus and sharpness are vastly overrated, and they then settle down to make some decent images.

Hear, hear!

[pgk]

Whilst looking at a finished print, why should one care whether or not the contrast was increased via using a newer, higher-contrast lens, a longer development time, or a slider in software after scanning?

Does this fundamentally change the way you view a print? Are there any rules that state one way of increasing contrast (as just an example of "image manipulation") is the "correct" way of doing it?
Depends. Rules? Not sure there are any really. FWIW My mother has a Cibachrome print on the wall that was made from a Kodachrome slide that I took whilst a photography student in ~1980.So iIt is now over 40 years old and she (and I) still enjoy viewing it - she sees it everyday and is not bored with it. So the print does what it was intended to and has survived the rigors of being constantly viewed very well, and far better than I ever anticipated.
However. As many will be aware, Cibachrome prints were not without their problems. This particular one was made by a printer who actually used a physical unsharp mask to do so and is probably as good a print as was available from 'wet processing'. I remember that the slide was shot on a Nikon FM using a borrowed 28/3.5 Nikkor which had a hard life with sudents using it and even the Ai prong had been broken off it. To a viewer of course, both are irrelevant. I recently copied the original slide in 4 sections, merged them and cleaned (40 years worth of dust!) and adjusted the file and then had it bubbljet printed by a very good printer. Technically this is a 'better' print. I will eventually frame it and put it up and it does bring out every ddetail on the slide with a little better tonality than the Cibachrome print.
Both prints are viewed for the image though, not for their technicalities which were merely a means to an end.
Back to the original question. I have just sold off some 'classic' Leica lenses because I realised that I preferred the output from modern equivalents more - based simply on viewing the images they produced. Pretty as they were, the 'classic' lenses did not produce the images as I wanted them to be. For large format I prefer very much older, 'dreamy' lenses. To me the two have very different roles to play, so I suppose the answer I would give is that personally I don't see large format as needing the traits of digital lenses. But we are all different and have differing desires of our imagery.

[Tin Can]

Here Hear!

I agree

I wonder about the reasons for endless gaslighting of anything here without posting as good an emulation as they can produce

Poster #2 has admitted to using a Digi, then denies

I respect the one woman expert we have, yet no donuts yet

I really appreciate this post by a proveable image making expert

Paul Cunningham

Yes, direct viewing in a gallery is best, but locations are always expensive, so we live on computers now

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166286-LOMO-Instax-WIDE-back-FOR-4X5-Camera&p=1623515&viewfull=1#post1623515

[Jody_S]

But isn’t photography by definition illustrative, not impressionistic?

Well my passport photo certainly is. So was my latest MRI. I prefer thinking of photography as storytelling though. Sometimes that story involves reproducing a view of something with the greatest possible clarity and detail. Most often not, or at least that's not what I'm trying to do. I don't tell other people what their photography is or should be, because theirs is not my story to tell.

[Tin Can]

The problem with experimenters

old as the hills

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scanning-glass-look.html

[Michael R]

Perhaps you’re not looking in the right places. Charles Cramer was mentioned earlier in this thread. He transitioned to digital. Superb work. Doesn’t look digital or analog, just looks terrific.


Well, let's see.... digital photography has been around two or three decades. The dinosaurs lasted many millions of years, and turtles and crocodiles were in existence even before them, and are still around. Certain designs just make sense. And art? I'd rather see Lascaux in person (though now that's sealed off from the public, and one has to see it in a faux replication), than every "street art" neo-Phenom splatter in every museum in the world. Some folks got it right the first time, and long before Lascaux itself. Latest/greatest technology is a poor substitute for real home cooking. Choose your kitchen appliances according to your own needs, and use em well. But the gadgetry itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Likewise, fine lenses. I use em, but they don't do the work by themselves.
I do appreciate that Bosch convection oven behind me, which will do the turkey on Thursday in less than an hour and a half!

But I do have my own hypocrisies. Responding to Mark, hammer's DON'T drive nails. Not anymore. Nail guns do. I had a lot to do with establishing that trend in the first place, at least here in the Western half of the US. Either adapt or go extinct, financially, if you were a contractor. But I'm not a commercial photographer, so can take my time and still do real-deal home cooking in the darkroom the way I want to. Optimal quality is the incentive, and that's how I do it. No commercial lab can afford the time.

[Michael R]

“All photographs are illusions”. (John Sexton)

And what is clinical supposed to mean? First it was tabular emulsions that were clinical. Then digital. Sharp lenses. Please.

[paulbarden]

And what is clinical supposed to mean?

I can only tell you what it means to me, in relation to my aesthetic choices when making a photograph; "Clinical" = "a cold, detached flawlessness, devoid of interpretive affect".

For me, lenses are interpretive devices; they have characteristics that does one of two things: generate one or more optical effects (chromatic aberration, coma, curved field, etc.) or do their best to avoid all of the optical effects that are considered "flaws" in lens designs. Personally, I find "flawless" lenses to be lacking in interpretive power: dry, dull, no sense of playfulness. Not everyone wants these "flaws" in the work they do and that's fine, but I enjoy what some lenses have to offer. For me, older lenses with design compromises expand my image making vocabulary (https://flic.kr/p/2mKmxzo) - they introduce new languages and dialects. I like to explore other languages in my work. Some people prefer absolutes, like "perfect" lenses with maximum sharpness and contrast, free from aberrations and capable of delivering flawless images from corner to corner. Sometimes I like that kind of thing too (https://flic.kr/p/2mGEkBd)*, but it's not the only valid approach to making a good photograph.



Telling other photographers what is "right" and what is "wrong" in their craft is a common problem, especially when it comes to film technologies. I wish we could all live happily in the creative space we make for ourselves without having to navigate other peoples uncompromising opinions, but our species loves to offer opinions, whether they were requested or not!

*Note that the image at this URL was made with an early 1900s Gundlach Turner-Reich 12" convertible, on 8x10 FP4. Does it lack sharpness, contrast? If it was good enough for Weston.....

[Tin Can]

Not for all

My vision, in reality, dimming and distorting

Terminal Glaucoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18756789/

Soon I see blackout in one eye then the next

I will try to continue photography with setups I am preparing now

PreVision


But isn’t photography by definition illustrative, not impressionistic? Simply because we ‘tone’ a print or add red filter to taking lens, it doesn’t detract from the image being illustration? As I mentioned before, unless we are choosing to define every centimeter of an image, with photography is not possible unless we are manipulating via PS etc, it still is a snapshot of reality. No way around it. If we want the distortion or flare from a retro lens to affect the image, it does not push the medium to “alt” reality.

Since I am keenly enamored of the natural landscape in all it’s infinite variety, I have tried to remain faithful to what my eye sees - wyswyg.

[Michael R]

Well, I certainly agree there isn't necessarily a right or wrong when it comes to aesthetic/creative choices. Someone tells you anything like that you know right away what kind of yutz you're dealing with. :)


I can only tell you what it means to me, in relation to my aesthetic choices when making a photograph; "Clinical" = "a cold, detached flawlessness, devoid of interpretive affect".

For me, lenses are interpretive devices; they have characteristics that does one of two things: generate one or more optical effects (chromatic aberration, coma, curved field, etc.) or do their best to avoid all of the optical effects that are considered "flaws" in lens designs. Personally, I find "flawless" lenses to be lacking in interpretive power: dry, dull, no sense of playfulness. Not everyone wants these "flaws" in the work they do and that's fine, but I enjoy what some lenses have to offer. For me, older lenses with design compromises expand my image making vocabulary (https://flic.kr/p/2mKmxzo) - they introduce new languages and dialects. I like to explore other languages in my work. Some people prefer absolutes, like "perfect" lenses with maximum sharpness and contrast, free from aberrations and capable of delivering flawless images from corner to corner. Sometimes I like that kind of thing too (https://flic.kr/p/2mGEkBd)*, but it's not the only valid approach to making a good photograph.



Telling other photographers what is "right" and what is "wrong" in their craft is a common problem, especially when it comes to film technologies. I wish we could all live happily in the creative space we make for ourselves without having to navigate other peoples uncompromising opinions, but our species loves to offer opinions, whether they were requested or not!

*Note that the image at this URL was made with an early 1900s Gundlach Turner-Reich 12" convertible, on 8x10 FP4. Does it lack sharpness, contrast? If it was good enough for Weston.....

[John Layton]

So much sharpness-bashing…jeesh!

More to the point - this should be personal. It is totally up to each one of us to find out what works for each of us…personally. A huge (impossible?) challenge these days to pursue with any real integrity (without the opinions of others) - given the huge number of choices currently available to us.

So is there a “great paradox” here? That because of a currently overwhelming number of (optical/opti-electrical) choices, we are left to depend on the opinions of others, making us, by default…irresponsible? Ya think? :confused:

I, for one, continue to be motivated, inspired, and fascinated by getting up close and personal with a darkroom processed LF print and counting the hairs on a bees knee (hmmm…not many LF images of bees knees), or the sharply etched icy fuzz on frosted leaves, or the pinpoint dots of thousands of barnacles, whose presence provides a wonderful counterpoint to an otherwise soft, dreamy, time-exposed seascape.

The seascape example is particularly important…because this is personal. As I child I almost always had a tattered copy of the little Golden Book, “Seashores” in my back pocket - always anticipating those very precious two weeks of each summer when I would actually be at the ocean, where I would spend endless hours with a mask and snorkel, or wading in tidepools - often with my father. (especially precious as spending time in this environment with my dad was the only place where he and I actually, truly connected).

What I find compelling about the ocean, particularly the intertidal interstices along a rocky coastline, is the perfect balance of the sea, as expressed by the tremendous power of its surf (acting in concert with the underlying geology)…and the incredible diversity of the marine life which that very surf, those very rocks, help to nurture and protect. That I find this dynamic environment a place of energy, inspiration, solace, and peace, (and indeed…primordial kinship) continues to draw me into its presence…and the blessing of great comfort I receive in this environment (often while embracing otherwise challenging conditions) is one which I often meet with a long time exposure - softening the sea while not diminishing its power…while also capturing, quietly but in sharp relief, those very details…barnacles, rocks, seaweed, etc. that depend so completely upon what that sea brings to them.

I think that phrase…”quietly, but in sharp relief,” says something about what I, personally, value in a lens - that it has a capacity to render sharply, faithfully…that it does not otherwise call attention to itself…and therefore presents me with as broad a (monochromatic) palette as is possible, with which I will then proceed to interpret the scene before me in whatever manner is most consistent with that which drew me to the subject in the first place. In short, its all between myself and my subject…and the lens needs to remain a perfectly transparent window between us, and to otherwise “stay out of the way.”

But again…this is personal - and thank goodness! And I also thank goodness (personally), that I am old enough to have largely escaped the great paradox! :cool:

[pdmoylan]

I remember being in awe of closeups of natural scenes with 4x5 Panatomic X and the lastest Schneider lenses I saw in Audubon magazine during the late 70s.I wasn't a photographer then.

Later it was Porter's DT prints and Sexton's monumental commercial work which set me on a course to use LF, the best lenses and finest grain films. Clyde Butcher is another whose best work IMHO is with modern lenses.

Simply trying my best to emulate those visual experiences using lighter digital gear in an F64 style. So finding the right lenses makes a significant difference.

Having used the GFX 50 extensively, I can only say that images are IMO unrefined; the artifacts, warm color cast in dull light, magenta shift in blue sky, and retro color scheme (ugly browns, undifferentiated green hues, reds turning pink, etc) is totally unsatisfactory. Yes larger prints are possible than FF, but I have yet to meet a digital camera print that matches or exceeds photo prints from 4x5 film.

The issue with digital has always been edge definition, and so I get the focus on sharper lenses atsthat improves, albeit marginally, detail and therefore acutance.

Graphically, the best choice would be a technical camera with best Rodenstock digital lenses and digital back, but this is heavy, cumbersome, and rather expensive even compared to 4x5 film equipment. If I was in my 20s-30s and had the resources, this would be my choice as LF substitute, or rather alternative.

[paulbarden]

I think that phrase…”quietly, but in sharp relief,” says something about what I, personally, value in a lens - that it has a capacity to render sharply, faithfully…that it does not otherwise call attention to itself…and therefore presents me with as broad a (monochromatic) palette as is possible, with which I will then proceed to interpret the scene before me in whatever manner is most consistent with that which drew me to the subject in the first place. In short, its all between myself and my subject…and the lens needs to remain a perfectly transparent window between us, and to otherwise “stay out of the way.”

Perfect!

[Bernice Loui]

Ari gets the ~Gold~ Star for this comment.

This is what ~Pixel Peeping~ was like circa 1990's with sheet film. Not done with software and 'puter, it was done using a microscope.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164451-5x7-Ektachrome-Epson-4990-scanner-vs-Wild-M420-microscope

Magnification is 240x. This good enough or this example using a 14" f9 APO artar (@f22) still lacks "sharpness" and
in great need for improvement _?_ Proves to be totally and utterly useless in real world expressive image making needs. Got over all this LF Pixel Peeping in the 1990's after learning the lesson, zero of all that is going to add to the emotional expressiveness of the image.

Much of this question related to post like this recent example.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166303-Best-of-the-Ultra-Wide-Angle-Best-for-6x12

"Also I want to go for the very highest caliber of lenses."

Where did this belief come from and why ?

Not a contest, winner does not take anything.
Bernice




I
There are far too many pixel-peepers around, as always, so the pointless hunt for perfection continues. Beyond that there are some truly beautiful images being made, with craft and skill, and with digital cameras.


How much of the pixel peeping carries over to LF? Probably lots, but old-time LFers can be just as bad sometimes.
Eventually, hopefully, they realize that focus and sharpness are vastly overrated, and they then settle down to make some decent images.

[Jody_S]

We have been conditioned over our entire lifetimes now by the gear manufacturers to always be looking for that magic bullet, that if we just fork over another $1-5K or whatever for this latest, newest gear, our photos will finally be perfect. If you go back to advertising 120 years ago, lenses were sold exactly like hammers or any other tool. Because craftsmen generally don't purchase tools based on advertising, they purchase on word of mouth, learning which tools will be suitable for their trade by watching others use them, then making a cost/benefit analysis.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, the "baiting" continues on to this day and will into the future..

Example, years ago Canon introduced the M3 mirrorless digital. Market reviewers greatly dis-liked the M3 due to it's poor autofocus performance driving it's market value down lots.. Picked up two at greatly discounted $.. Use them with manual focus lenses, autofocus became a complete non-issue. M3's worked as good as any APS-C digital camera. Many of the imaged posted on LFF was made using these early Canon mirrorless with a manual focus lens.. Due to their compact small size, they went traveling lots, made LOTs of images.. In time they were re-sold and replaced by the M6 which continues to be used lots to this day. Not a lot if any incentive to "upgrade" as the current lens set and all works good.

Much the same applies to the view camera stuff.

Not so good for cycling $ or making the economy go ?
Bernice






We have been conditioned over our entire lifetimes now by the gear manufacturers to always be looking for that magic bullet, that if we just fork over another $1-5K or whatever for this latest, newest gear, our photos will finally be perfect. If you go back to advertising 120 years ago, lenses were sold exactly like hammers or any other tool. Because craftsmen generally don't purchase tools based on advertising, they purchase on word of mouth, learning which tools will be suitable for their trade by watching others use them, then making a cost/benefit analysis.

[Corran]

That's a great example of what the issue with your argument is here, in my opinion.

Poor autofocus is a GREAT example of a perfectly valid and reasonable issue with a camera (or lens) that could seriously impact a photographer's work. There are many types and styles of photography that would be hampered by this - such as, sports, fast-paced journalism, weddings, etc. I'm going to assume you aren't pursuing any of these seriously, and that's okay. But others have a need for this - and may also have a need for well-corrected lenses that have little to no aberrations at very wide apertures, as referenced in the original post. My bread-and-butter lenses for weddings were fast AF primes that were sharp about 2/3 of a stop down from wide-open, and could be pushed to wide-open with a bit of spherical aberrations. Nowadays if I were gearing up to do weddings with new gear, I would probably opt for a full set of newer lenses that didn't have those issues at f/1.4 or whatever, and that's because it's what I want. Similarly, I would absolutely not be happy with a digital camera that had bad AF performance with the lenses I use, if I bought the camera with the intention of using that. I'm not sure why your particular use-case with MF lenses matters at all, in a critique of a camera's AF performance?

Similarly I generally prefer shooting with somewhat modern Schneider APO or XL lenses on 4x5, though I'll occasionally use other lenses for certain effects, including SF lenses. I have over the years tried Tessars, which many people love, but I don't particularly get along with them for various reasons. This is an example of my personal opinions based on my stylistic choices - but I would not argue that others that shoot and love Tessars are somehow wrong in their pursuit of that style.

This isn't a foolhardy need for "perfection" or something like that - it's a particular choice, and I think I've burned enough sheets/rolls of film to show that I know a little something about my needs and style. I would also not fault a newbie in LF with lots of experience in digital or roll film wanting a certain class or style of lens, for the style of images they expect to make - and if they change or evolve later, cool, but that doesn't negate the original stylistic choices or opinions. This is just my opinion here Bernice, but sometimes I feel like you really want to enlighten us as to the right and proper way to shoot or think about lenses, which is of course how you've done it after this or that experience. I absolutely agree that there are plenty of folks too worried about "sharpness," but that doesn't mean that the pursuit of good, sharp, contrasty lenses is somehow wrong.

[Bob Salomon]

Ari gets the ~Gold~ Star for this comment.

This is what ~Pixel Peeping~ was like circa 1990's with sheet film. Not done with software and 'puter, it was done using a microscope.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164451-5x7-Ektachrome-Epson-4990-scanner-vs-Wild-M420-microscope

Magnification is 240x. This good enough or this example using a 14" f9 APO artar (@f22) still lacks "sharpness" and
in great need for improvement _?_ Proves to be totally and utterly useless in real world expressive image making needs. Got over all this LF Pixel Peeping in the 1990's after learning the lesson, zero of all that is going to add to the emotional expressiveness of the image.

Much of this question related to post like this recent example.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166303-Best-of-the-Ultra-Wide-Angle-Best-for-6x12

"Also I want to go for the very highest caliber of lenses."

Where did this belief come from and why ?

Not a contest, winner does not take anything.
Bernice

The user may get satisfaction with them.

[Tin Can]

Pride of ownership

I like new cars too

& HOT food


The user may get satisfaction with them.

[Lachlan 717]

Pride of ownership

I like new cars too

& HOT food

And Haikus, apparently.

[alan_b]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, no matter how clinical or aberration-ridden your lenses are.

[LabRat]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, no matter how clinical or aberration-ridden your lenses are.

And not a Turkey in the bunch!!! Happy Thanksgiving, and here comes the holidaze... ;-)

Steve K

[Fred L]

we've already had our turkey time up here so hope everyone down there has safe travels, safe gatherings with fam and friends, and lots of dark meat and gravy :) garlic smashed taters too