Which 'old' lenses are as good as the 'new' lenses?

[duff photographer]

I have read in the forums that one or two older lenses are still as good as their modern counterparts (with image circles to cover 4x5 format), at least in terms of resolution.

As an example (and judging by the MTF's) I would guess that the older lead-glass Schneider Apo-Symmar range is as good as the newer lead-free Apo-Symmar L range albeit with a smaller image circle (or am I wrong?).

Are their any users out there who have been able to compare the older lenses with the modern lenses (in the same focal length) from the same manufacturer? If so, which old lenses are inseperable, or even better, than their modern brethren in terms of resolution, flare suppression, colour rendition, etc.?




-----
www.fineartofnature.co.uk

[Gene McCluney]

Lenses are such a personal choice for photographers. I use old Eastman Commercial Ektars in my studio product photography..they give me everything I want..tack sharp, good color, dependability. For some photographers this would seem absurd, considering some of the supposed "advantages" offered by newer computer-designed multi-coated lenses, but I have made a living from my work for over 30 years. I do use more modern lenses on location work, though.

[Dan Fromm]

Since when is an Apo Symmar an old lens?

[Eric Rose]

What is "good"?

[BrianShaw]

What is "new"?

[John Kasaian]

IMHO the 'tog is far and away more important than the glass. As an example, I can make absolultely horrible photographs with the late$t and greate$t wunder optic$ (trust me on this!)

[Kevin Crisp]

What is the purpose of the question? Of what use is an answer, any answer? Are you thinking you could buy older lenses and save money? If so, give some focal lengths you want and collect recommendations. Some older lenses cost a lot more than new ones.

[John Schneider]

In math/engineering in academia one would call this question "ill-posed." (1) There are too many variables, (2) I'm not even sure what you're really asking, (3) there's no certainty an answer even exists, and (4) I'm sure a unique answer doesn't exist. Unless you know what you really want to find out, there can be no answer. Q.E.D. Then there's the totally separate matter of perception. A rendition I find pleasing may be too harsh/sharp/soft/uncontrasty/etc. to you.

[Asher Kelman]

I have read in the forums that one or two older lenses are still as good as their modern counterparts (with image circles to cover 4x5 format), at least in terms of resolution.

As an example (and judging by the MTF's) I would guess that the older lead-glass Schneider Apo-Symmar range is as good as the newer lead-free Apo-Symmar L range albeit with a smaller image circle (or am I wrong?).

Are their any users out there who have been able to compare the older lenses with the modern lenses (in the same focal length) from the same manufacturer? If so, which old lenses are inseperable, or even better, than their modern brethren in terms of resolution, flare suppression, colour rendition, etc.?
-----
www.fineartofnature.co.uk
This depends on a lot of things, in a simple way, if one is stopping down and not using the periphery of the lens, then difference get less and less. However, open lenses use the outside of the lens where the money is to get light to end up focused in the right place.

Some of the old lens were excellent and even very fine stopped down.

If you really want to know then it's straightforward to test the lens. See Imatest.com (http://www.imatest.com).

Asher

[Mark Sawyer]

I have read in the forums that one or two older lenses are still as good as their modern counterparts (with image circles to cover 4x5 format), at least in terms of resolution.

As an example (and judging by the MTF's) I would guess that the older lead-glass Schneider Apo-Symmar range is as good as the newer lead-free Apo-Symmar L range albeit with a smaller image circle (or am I wrong?).

Are their any users out there who have been able to compare the older lenses with the modern lenses (in the same focal length) from the same manufacturer? If so, which old lenses are inseperable, or even better, than their modern brethren in terms of resolution, flare suppression, colour rendition, etc.?

The old just doesn't compare with the new. Really, comparing some old Velostigmat or Cooke Aviar with a new Apo-Super-Multicoated-XXXL, well that's like expecting Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly to live up to the standards of Brittney Spears or Lindsey Lohan...

Really, we come so far, who would want to go back?

[David Karp]

. . . that's like expecting Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly to live up to the standards of Brittney Spears or Lindsey Lohan...

Really, we come so far, who would want to go back?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Nick_3536]

I think your idea of old might be a little off but you could check the

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html

[duff photographer]

Since when is an Apo Symmar an old lens?

Sorry. Old as in no longer manufactured.

[duff photographer]

The old just doesn't compare with the new. Really, comparing some old Velostigmat or Cooke Aviar with a new Apo-Super-Multicoated-XXXL, well that's like expecting Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly to live up to the standards of Brittney Spears or Lindsey Lohan...

Really, we come so far, who would want to go back?

Umm... give me Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly any day!! but I think I see what you're getting at.

[paulr]

if you're ok with a genealization that's as vague as the question, i'd say that raw performance (which i'll arbitrarily define as MTF over the negative area without any movements, over a small but useful range of f-stops), then here goes:

raw performance of the best lenses improved in fits and starts up until the 60s or so. After that, peak performance didn't change much, but was extended over wider ranges of image circle, apertures, and magnification ranges. after the 80s, these performance gains slowed a great deal, but there was a burst of improvement in practical areas .... size, weight etc. (e.g., schneider's aspheric lenses).

anyone who knows the topic will point out a hundred counter-examples, so take this with a grain of salt.

[duff photographer]

Thanks for your replies. Seems my question isn't properly worded for some, which is my fault, so I'll try again.

Because of changes in modern lenses compared with 'old' (non-modern) lenses, for example the use of lead in glass making is now banned on environmental grounds, some may be of lesser quality than the older types of the SAME focal length and from the SAME manufacturer (emphasis on capitalised words).

In addition, some improved quality, such as larger image circle which may be important to some users, may be undertaken at the expense of resolution, which may be more important to others.

Therefore, how does a Schneider 180mm Apo-Symmar stack up to an Apo-Symmar L or an ...(insert your chosen focal length and chosen manufacturer here of a lens which is no longer produced with the one that is currently produced)?

This is just a general straight-forward question with no hidden agenda and refers to ANY focal length from any line of lenses from the SAME manufacturer (Rodenstock, Schneider, etc.).

[duff photographer]

if you're ok with a genealization that's as vague as the question, i'd say that raw performance (which i'll arbitrarily define as MTF over the negative area without any movements, over a small but useful range of f-stops), then here goes:

raw performance of the best lenses improved in fits and starts up until the 60s or so. After that, peak performance didn't change much, but was extended over wider ranges of image circle, apertures, and magnification ranges. after the 80s, these performance gains slowed a great deal, but there was a burst of improvement in practical areas .... size, weight etc. (e.g., schneider's aspheric lenses).

anyone who knows the topic will point out a hundred counter-examples, so take this with a grain of salt.

Thanks Paulr. That's the sort of answer I'm looking for.

[Toyon]

The old just doesn't compare with the new. Really, comparing some old Velostigmat or Cooke Aviar with a new Apo-Super-Multicoated-XXXL, well that's like expecting Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly to live up to the standards of Brittney Spears or Lindsey Lohan...

Really, we come so far, who would want to go back?

The reason Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly looked so good was the Wollensak and Cooke cinema lenses they were shot with. Off camera, Hepburn was indistinguishable from Spencer Tracy and Kelly from her twin brother Gene, I'm told.

[Bob Salomon]

Go try an Apo Sironar S vs an older lens or most modern ones. Under the same conditions with the same subject with the same processing and the same lighting and the same film.

Then you won't have top ask this question.

If you are looking at digital then you would substitute an Apo Sironar Digital or an Apo Sironar Digital HR (depending on the back) for the S with the same results.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Therefore, how does a Schneider 180mm Apo-Symmar stack up to an Apo-Symmar L or an ...(insert your chosen focal length and chosen manufacturer here of a lens which is no longer produced with the one that is currently produced)?

This is just a general straight-forward question with no hidden agenda and refers to ANY focal length from any line of lenses from the SAME manufacturer (Rodenstock, Schneider, etc.).

In these cases, where you're comparing the newest lenses to older lenses produced in the era of multicoating (and the more complex designs that are made viable as a result), I think you'll find most improvements are going to be small, except in fast wide lenses, which have really improved in recent years (with the acknowledgment that the old Biogons were excellent, but don't have the coverage of their modern Schneider and Rodenstock counterparts).

Some older lenses have attractions like smooth rendering of out of focus areas (Heliar, Verito, Petzval and others), huge image circles for their focal length (Dagor, Wide-Field Ektar), and compactness (Dagor, various older wideangle designs, casket sets), that can make them worthwhile, even if they aren't as sharp corner-to-corner as modern lenses.

[Ken Lee]

The same question can be asked of any kind of recording device: film, digital sensors, audio equipment, video equipment, etc.

The trend we see is an increase in "range", and a decrease in "noise": aberration, distortion, etc. Other trends are towards portability, affordability, ease of manufacturing, etc.

So in general, earlier designers were able solve many of the problems, at the expense of others. For example, the Tessar design (still in use (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sony%20tessar&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) after 100 years) gives a wonderful rendering, but suffers from reduced coverage.

So you are basically asking whether there are any older designs that managed to solve all the issues as well as modern designs (or designs yet to come). The answer is probably no. If they had, we would still be using them today.

For the most part, we are using modern variants of the classic designs.

That being said - noise or not - I love the way my vintage 250mm Tessar renders portraits (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/0009a.htm), even though my modern 240 Fujinon A is sharper (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/landscapes/marblehead.htm).

It's not an either/or decision.

[paulr]

I haven't used the Apo Symmar-L lenses, but have used the Apo Symmar-S lenses for years.

I've also compared the MTF curves of of a couple of focal lengths between the two generations.

My experience suggests that only occasionally does my ability to focus and adjust the camera conspire with a perfect windless day and a perfectly planar subject, and allow me to see what the lens is really capable of. When this happens, I'm blown away. But the difference between this and most situations is pretty big. All these other factors (especially focus) would likely make the difference between an apo symmar s and any better lens seem insignificant.

Looking at the MTF curves, the only improvement I see in the apo symmar L lenses is slightly increased image circle. they may perform slightly better at wide apertures, but i can't remember for sure. without movements, at f22, at infinity the old lens appeared at least as good.

a schneider technician told me that they've improved manufacturing consistency, but there's no way we can really confirm that.

[paulr]

The same question can be asked of any kind of recording device: film, digital sensors, audio equipment, video equipment, etc.

That's a really valid comparison. I think of musicians and producers especially. Many of them use vintage gear, like all-tube guitar amps from the '60s, old microphones, recording consoles, mechanical reverb units, etc. etc..

Modern units are all "better" based on the standards of engineers--distortion, noise, frequency response, etc.. But from the perspective of the artist or producer, better is a lot more subjective. sometimes they want the clean, objectively better modern sound. sometimes they want the sound of the '60s or '70s.

An old fender or ampeg amp has a pallette of sounds that works for some people's music. They might want it in spite of the amps various problems, or in some cases because of them. And if they throw out their back because the thing weighs a hundred pounds, it's all in the name of art.

[Steve Hamley]

The reason Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly looked so good was the Wollensak and Cooke cinema lenses they were shot with. Off camera, Hepburn was indistinguishable from Spencer Tracy and Kelly from her twin brother Gene, I'm told.

That's KATHARINE Hepburn that was an item with Spencer Tracy, not Audrey Hepburn. Are you sure you know what lenses you're shooting with? :rolleyes:

"....that's like expecting Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly to live up to the standards of Brittney Spears or Lindsey Lohan..."

Glad I have my Heliars and Dagors thank you very much!

Steve

[sanking]

That's KATHARINE Hepburn that was an item with Spencer Tracy, not Audrey Hepburn. Are you sure you know what lenses you're shooting with? :rolleyes:

"....that's like expecting Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly to live up to the standards of Brittney Spears or Lindsey Lohan..."

Glad I have my Heliars and Dagors thank you very much!

Steve

Steve,

You are aware of the fact that there was a very famous actress from Grace Kelley's period named Audrey Hepburn, are you not? She gave up acting but in her day Audrey Hepburn's fame was on a level with that of Katharine Hepburn, and she was a very class act, which is why she was mentioned with Grace Kelley I believe. But of course, it was Katharine Hepburn who was a number with Spencer Tracey, and Howard Hughes.


Sandy King

[Steve Hamley]

Sandy,

Oh yes, Audrey is one of my favorite actresses. Beauty and class together. Both were great actresses, but I prefer Audrey's films myself.

Steve

[neil poulsen]

If you think Apo Symmars are "old", then go for it! Get the old lenses. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

If you want ancient, try what I use, which are Symmar-S lenses and Super Angulons from about the same period. (Late 70's to early 80's.) My Summar-S lenses are multicoated; my Super Angulons aren't. I like the results that I get with these lenses.

[Ole Tjugen]

... If you want ancient, try what I use, which are Symmar-S lenses and Super Angulons from about the same period. ...

Or just plain Angulons and just plain Symmars, which is what I use most of the time. when I'm not using pre-WWII Tessars, Heliars, Angulons, Aplanats and Doppel-Amatars, that is... :)

[Dan Fromm]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Ole but you know a secret. The differences between lenses that are good enough, which includes having the coverage desired, are swamped by poor technique.

And you know another secret. There's no need to justify buying lenses, let alone use such a thin justification as "It is newer and better." "See lens, buy lens" seems just fine to me.

I know a secret too. We can shout your secrets from the hilltops and no one will hear.

[Toyon]

I said Audrey Hepburn was "indistinguishable" from Spencer Tracy, not "inseparable." In the latter case that would have been Katherine. By the way, I've never looked at a great photograph and thought to myself, "this photograph is great because it is sharp." I'd put that pretty low down on the list of compelling attributes. Of course this doesn't apply to technical photography.

[Ole Tjugen]

... I know a secret too. We can shout your secrets from the hilltops and no one will hear.

... but if I bid early on some lens on ebay, it will invariable go for several times my "max reasonable price"!

There are two more important secrets:

Most of the "great pictures" were taken with lenses which today would definitely be "substandard". Like most of Ansel Adams' pictures...

Some old lenses have "personalities", so that for some subjects they are actually better than any new Super XX Rally GT.

and a third one as well for good measure: For the price of one brand new 210mm SXXRGT you can get at least five old 210mm's of wildly varying characters. And money left over for enough film to try them all out, and sell the ones you don't like on ebay. :)

[panchro-press]

I second Ole' remarks. Weston's magnificent 'Pepper 30' was made with a $10 Rapid Rectilinear. Which, even then, wasn't close to 'state of the art'. Modern lenses do preform better than the old lenses, but how many test chart photographs have you marveled at?

[Shen45]

Ole and Pancho have made excellent points.

I have a shot I did recently with an Aldis from 1900 and something. [11" @7.7] no shutter just a lens sock my wife made for me. My 210 Rodenstock Sironar is way sharper but by comparison is, well -- boring. I have two 300mm lenses from a similar era as the Aldis [Velostigmat and a Radar] and while they are not comparable to the 300 Nikon of a friend they do have a quality that the Nikon cannot match. That doesn't mean one is "better" than the other but they are definitely different.

I saw some images shot by Ansel Adams with state of the art lenses [or maybe not] from the late '20s to the mid '40s. I have to say that I wasn't looking at the images and thinking if only he had the latest XYZ super coated whiz bang lens from today how much better it would have been. Probably my most modern lens is an Rodenstock Sironar from the early '70s all of my other lenses are from the 1800's the early 1900's and 1940's and 50's.

I shoot only B&W so while coatings are, or can be important they are not essential.

I have to thank or blame :) Jim Galli for this obsession with old glass. The resolution from my Hasselblad is better than the old glass but as has been said already MTF charts aren't everything. There is more to glass than meets the eye.

[Jim Galli]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Ole but you know a secret.
I know a secret too. We can shout your secrets from the hilltops and no one will hear.

Good week on the 'bay! Scored a Series II Cooke in shutter and a Beach Multifocal :cool:

Take that XXXL. Actually I've got a 150 XL and I think I've used it 2 times. It hasn't produced a memorable picture so far.

Actually the reason you switch to 8X10 is for brute force tonality. Like having a car with 600 horsepower. You don't worry about getting from stop light to stop light.

[Glenn Thoreson]

None of those old lenses are any good. None of 'em. Please send them to me for proper disposal. :D

[panchro-press]

Damn! I should have tried that approach.

[Jim Rhoades]

Whoa, I don't know who Lindsey Lohan is, but Brittney Spears has no standards.

Just about any of the icons of photography used lenses that the lens snobs of today would use as ashtrays. A photographer is judged by his/her prints not the lens.

BTW, I like my Wollensak triple and a Ektar 203.

[cgf]

...I don't know who Lindsey Lohan is...




You lucky, lucky man!!!! ;)

[audioexcels]

That's a really valid comparison. I think of musicians and producers especially. Many of them use vintage gear, like all-tube guitar amps from the '60s, old microphones, recording consoles, mechanical reverb units, etc. etc..

Modern units are all "better" based on the standards of engineers--distortion, noise, frequency response, etc.. But from the perspective of the artist or producer, better is a lot more subjective. sometimes they want the clean, objectively better modern sound. sometimes they want the sound of the '60s or '70s.

An old fender or ampeg amp has a pallette of sounds that works for some people's music. They might want it in spite of the amps various problems, or in some cases because of them. And if they throw out their back because the thing weighs a hundred pounds, it's all in the name of art.

Well...I don't know that I agree here because it is true that many and perhaps "most" guitarists that are known to be the very best in the marketed (known to us) world are using tubed amplifiers, and even specific guitars/guitar parts/etc. to keep that vintage sound to some extent. At the same time, they are using a "ton" of effects, often simultaneously to take this vintage sound into the modern times to give it a truly phenomenal sound...Take SRV, as an example. He played that same old beat to crap guitar, had that same exact SRV signature sound, but he "always" had brand new strings, a ton of the current effects, etc. etc...I just don't hear Hendrix being replicated by any guitarist today and if he is, he's being given his own sound via a multitude of the latest effects to bring further life to the personal musician's signature sound and his/her attempt to attribute the grooves Hendrix produced.

Even Carlos Santana who has always had that signature sound from the 60's/70's that we hear today is further enhanced by new devices that enable him to continue his music along similar lines of the past, but driving the present day age and future age that technology provides for him.

In the end, good old tubes in proper working condition are wonderful to play through...but all those effects can make a tubed amplifier sound indistinguishable from a solid state one.

As for photography, one need only shoot the older lens on film produced in the 60's/70's and compare it to the same lens used with film emulsions of today...along with the digital processing these negatives go through and the way they are printed....

OR, perhaps the best comparison would be to take the same lens, shoot one shot on 60's/70's film, and use the exact same chemicals from the 60's/70's that were used to develop/enlarge the print on paper from the 60's/70's. Then use the same lens and same 60's/70's film, but develop it with the newest developers, same or newer enlargening devices, and paper from today.

All my opinion of course...

[audioexcels]

Good week on the 'bay! Scored a Series II Cooke in shutter and a Beach Multifocal :cool:

Take that XXXL. Actually I've got a 150 XL and I think I've used it 2 times. It hasn't produced a memorable picture so far.

Actually the reason you switch to 8X10 is for brute force tonality. Like having a car with 600 horsepower. You don't worry about getting from stop light to stop light.

I kinda like this approach, but can we have that car weighs about 2500lbs and have it be bullet proof from suspension-brakes-tires-etc. etc.?:)

Question has to be, why not sell that 150XL for BANK mullah and buy more horses:)

[Bob Gentile]

"... SRV... played that same old beat to crap guitar, had that same exact SRV signature sound... I just don't hear Hendrix being replicated by any guitarist today... Carlos Santana... always had that signature sound from the 60's/70's..." SRV, Hendrix, Santana, et al., would have their signature sounds no matter what guitar/amp combo they used (within reason). Their "sound" comes from their hands, not their equipment. SRV, playing through Carlos's rig, would still sound like SRV -- not Carlos.

Same with photographers, except it comes from their eyes, not their equipment.

All my opinion of course... :)

[erie patsellis]

... but if I bid early on some lens on ebay, it will invariable go for several times my "max reasonable price"!

There are two more important secrets:

Most of the "great pictures" were taken with lenses which today would definitely be "substandard". Like most of Ansel Adams' pictures...

Some old lenses have "personalities", so that for some subjects they are actually better than any new Super XX Rally GT.

and a third one as well for good measure: For the price of one brand new 210mm SXXRGT you can get at least five old 210mm's of wildly varying characters. And money left over for enough film to try them all out, and sell the ones you don't like on ebay. :)

And I'll add, made with cameras that, by today's standards, are "worthless unless that's all you can afford, but you'll want to upgrade".

Amazingly, I don't get what part of dark box with lens at one end and film at another is responsible for this attitude. That (oversimplified, of course) is what it boils down to.


erie

[Nick_3536]

And I'll add, made with cameras that, by today's standards, are "worthless unless that's all you can afford, but you'll want to upgrade".


All true but

50-70 years ago the cameras and lenses they were using were new or at least newish. If they didn't like the camera they would have had it modified.

Today the sample variation on a 50 year old camera or lens can be pretty wide.

Throw in different needs and it gets worse.

Only way to know if a lens fills the need is to stick it on a camera and take a photograph.

[Rodney Polden]

Thanks for all the interesting opinions on this thread. One comment by Bob Salomon of HP Marketing regarding Rodenstock Apo Sironar S lenses caught my eye: "Go try an Apo Sironar S vs. an older lens or most modern ones. Under the same conditions with the same subject with the same processing and the same lighting and the same film. Then you won't have to ask this question."
That comment, together with the later reference to Chris Perez' & Kerry Thalmann's valuable lens-testing work (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) prompted me to see what results showed up for them, when they did exactly that task on numerous lenses.
I had read so many opinions re the Sironar S versions while I was learning about various lenses, that I was really surprised to see that the Apo Sironar S had actually come in with results sometimes above, sometimes equal AND SOMETIMES BELOW a variety of others available, including the cheaper Apo Sironar N, Fuji NSW, Sironar N, Apo Symmar, Symmar S, Apo Lanthar, Geronar..... the list goes on.
Now of course, this is only one set of tests, and it comes with caveats and provisos concerning comparisons of one lens with another. However, in the absence of any other similarly comprehensive review of this many lenses, it seems foolhardy to ignore the numbers, and waste all that careful and intensive testing that Chris P. and Kerry T. worked long and hard over.
I guess in the end it shows that there are many fine lenses out there, of all ages and in quite a wide price range. Maybe the actual resolving characteristics of the lens that's in your hand, rather than either a particular manufacturer, a particular lens design or a particular date of manufacture, is the detail for us to focus one. As the lens tests show, there are good and not-so-good examples of great designs from great manufacturers, even when they're doing all the quality control they can. When one lens gives 76 lppm, and the adjacent one off the assembly line gives 54 lppm, it's time to test a dozen examples before buying!

[Glenn Thoreson]

Erie, being the bottom feeding old grouch that I am, I don't think you're over simplifying anything. All the old time "idols" of the photographic community made famous photographs with what is now considered by some to be nothing more than doorstops. I say -- doorstops forever! :D

[Dan Fromm]

Please, Glenn, doorstops are too big and heavy to carry far. Paperweights forever!

[erie patsellis]

Oh, I'd have to disagree Glenn, those old worthless cameras, geez, these people should just give them away....(ulterior motives, nope...)


erie

[archivue]

Which 'old' lenses are as good as the 'new' lense ?

Iv'e bought two second hand apo sironar S 150 and 240, and they are as good as the new ones ;-)

[archivue]

While my xenar 150 is very sharp, the apo sironar S is as sharp but with a bigger IC, and better coating.

If you compare two pics made with this lenses (no movement, good light, F22, and the sun in your back, you won't see a big difference... but when you need movements, or if you shoot with a light in the scene...

[Shen45]

Which 'old' lenses are as good as the 'new' lense ?

Iv'e bought two second hand apo sironar S 150 and 240, and they are as good as the new ones ;-)

You do need to define your version of "as good". If it is pure sharpness probably as has been indicated most modern glass will be better than just about any older lenses in that sense. I can take photographs with very old Rapid Rectilinears that viewed from a correct viewing distance will have 100% more character and the appearance of detail that makes modern super sharp glass seem clinical and flat. However both images viewed apart and on their own merits will be excellent images.

If I was still shooting products I doubt I would use a Petzval from the late 1800's, but if the shoot demanded something unusual in that sense I would choose the lens that performed best based on the requirements of the end shot regardless of technical specs.

I have some of the old lenses used by photographers at the turn of the 1900's but I cannot produce work that is anywhere near as pleasing as they did, it is not just the lens. I wish it was :)