The Lens Education of the Noob

[lilmsmaggie]

OK - I've been following several threads for some time. I'm still learning as I go. I've noticed a certain trend for "classic" older lenses. You lens aficionados out there, you know who you are :)

I've read these discussions of:

voigtlander's, Pinkham & Smith, Dallmeyer, Cooke, Anastigmat's, Goerz, Tessar's and
Petzval's, Wollensak’s.

OK Help a noob out. What's the attraction? :D Why select one of these lenses versus a Symmar, or a Rodagon, Fujinon versus a Nikkor, or Sironar, etc.

Is it IQ, or something else? I'm still trying to decipher the lingo. :confused:

[CCHarrison]

I think a few articles on my site may help:

Go to http://www.antiquecameras.net

and read "Soft Focus Lenses"

"Soft Focus Lenses 2" and "Petzval Lens"

These lenses all have "character" that you wont find in modern lenses... its akin to driving a classic car...

Dan

[Vick Vickery]

A lot of the time it depends on what you find in a length you want at a good price at any given time! I stole a 215mm Ilex f/4.8 convertible off of eBay thinking it would do in that focal length until I got something better...turns out that I love that lens...sharp, fast, and convertible! It is a little big, but I can live with that!

Dan is right, all the lenses have their own "character", rendering things just a little tonally differently, with more or less inherent contrast, sharpness (of softness), bokeh, etc. You just have to play around with various lenses 'till you find out what you like! And when you get one you don't particularly like, sell it and try something else.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Is it IQ, or something else? I'm still trying to decipher the lingo."

"A lot of the time it depends on what you find in a length you want at a good price at any given time!"

Some times it's nationalist pride: American, German, English, French, ect...
Some time it's 'fan boy' for a particular brand
Some time it's 'filling the tripod holes' of past masters for a certain look

Most times it's just for the hell of it, something to brag about.

[Jim Galli]

I think you've hit the nail. IQ is the problem. Low IQ. Or even better, insanity.

Here's my real take. I think that high end consumer digital cameras have so rapidly closed the gap to what originally set the large formats "above" the rest, that some of us have drifted into this realm where computer's simply can't go. I feel that there is something viable with some of these antique lenses combined with brute force film sizes that's un-touchable in Photoshop. Sort of re-discovering a beauty that was forgotten and lost when Hasselblads took over the professional world.

[BarryS]

In the world of modern lenses and equipment, the process of photography is less visible and I think there's less of a connection to the history of photography. That's probably exactly what some photographers like, but I like more evidence of process in my art and for me--the history of the art is important. It's thrilling to filter your subject through an 1850's Petzval lens that was there at the very beginnings of photography. I'm interested in the processes of memory and collective history, so historical lenses and processes support the motifs I use in my work.

Even if that weren't the case, the links to history, scientific and artistic development and the unique characteristic of antique lenses make them satisfying to use. Current lens designs are not necessarily better and are significantly lacking in lending a unique signature to the image. Optimizing a lens for maximum sharpness, contrast and lack of aberrations out to the edges may serve technical considerations at the expense of artistic variety.

[memorris]

A bit different take here. I have one old lens and had a love affair with it for a while but have since gone to newer, sharper, more contrasty lenses. I like the new lenses better than the older because of the sharpness and clarity they give. It is very much something of personal preference and what works for you.

A more unique lens is not a requirement for personal expression. It can be used that way but is not the only way. Some find the old lenses satisfying, others find using the new lenses satisfying. Play with both and find what works best for you.

[John Kasaian]

What Jim Galli said.
Also money may have a lot to do with it--old lenses are cheap, cheap that is until it gathers a cult following, then they're expensive.

A photographer might never make a nickle on prints, but if you bought up a mess of Wollensak Veritos back when they couldn't give 'em away you might be considering converting them into a beach house on Coronado today!

[lilmsmaggie]

These lenses all have "character" that you wont find in modern lenses... its akin to driving a classic car...

Thanks Dan for the links. I'll have to come back and visit your site.

Wow! Lots and lots of character. Now when I read Ansel Adams "The Camera," it will have more meaning. When he talks about the "making" of a photograph, and "visualizing," he's really attempting to convey to the new photographer the importance of understanding what his lens choices and exposures would produce in terms of the final print.

Someone recently suggested that I keep an eye out for a Cooke. Now I understand why. But as John Kasaian points out, trying to get one of these beautiful pieces of art can put a big hole in one's bank account :D Even the newer Cooke's are pricey.

[Dan Fromm]

lilmsmaggie, thanks for asking the nasty question. I'm not much of a mind reader, so like you have wondered why soft focus lenses, and, more generally, lenses that are not anastigmats, have come into fashion.

I can't see much of it. The images I've seen with the coveted swirly bokeh make me nauseous.

Neither can anyone else. I've run blind tests with experienced photographers. They've failed miserably at matching shot with lens. IMO most of the noise about lenses' "signatures" and the like is just that. Noise. It is clear, though, that making the noise makes the noisemakers happy.

Soft focus is an aesthetic decision, so is not really fit for discussion. Not to my taste, but that's ok. Not everyone likes what I like, that's equally ok.

lilmsmaggie, I think you've confused a number of ideas.

Wollensak was a company, not a design type. Wollensak made lenses of many designs, including some fairly modern 6/4 plasmat types that are very good. In ancient times, they made lenses that are now coveted by people who like ancient lenses. For much of their history they made tessar type lenses. The Tessar is an anastigmat; tessar types can be very good, especially when used on formats smaller than their nominal coverage.

Dallmeyer was a company. The firm made lenses of many types.

Goerz was several companies. The firms made lenses of several types, including the highly-regarded Dagor, What I find interesting about Dagors is that other companies made Dagor types whose prescriptions are as near as makes no difference to Goerz Dagors' but that don't command nearly the prices. This makes no sense, speaks to photographers' ignorance or ovine nature.

Voigtlaender was a company, is now a brand. Again, the company made and the brand covers many design types.

Cooke is a trade mark or brand, the name of a company (Cooke Optics, formerly Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson), sometimes a design type. The original Cooke triplet was designed by H. D. Taylor of T. Cooke and Sons, a microscope manufacturer. Cooke and Sons had no interest in making photographic objectives, licensed the design to TTH. TTH subsequently used "Cooke" as a trademark of sorts, applied it to to lenses that are not triplets. For example, I have a 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens made by TTH; it is a tessar type. Cooke triplets can be very good even though they were often the low priced option. For example, the 103/4.5 Graftar is a Cooke triplet made by Wollensak (remember them?) for Graflex, Inc, who offered it as the least expensive normal lens for 2x3 Graphics. IMO it is much better than the highly-regarded 105/3.7 Ektar, the most expensive normal lens for 2x3 Graphics.

I use a few pre-WWI lenses, all f/6.3 Tessars; they are very good, were quite inexpensive. I use some other lenses that are now cult objects, e.g., 4"/2.0 (2 1/4" x 2 1/4") TTH Anastigmat, 160/5.6 Pro Raptar; they're fine lenses, cult status notwithstanding, and when I bought them they were less expensive than the alternatives. I use some lenses that aren't cult objects but that were made by well-known firms, e.g., 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, 38/4.5 Biogon. You wouldn't believe how little the Biogon cost. I use some lenses that aren't cult objects but that were made by, um, obscure makers, e.g., Apo-Saphirs; they're superb and were quite inexpensive.

For me, what matters is high quality at a low price. I don't know what matters to the sheep but since they're spending their money, not mine, so as long as they're happy I'm happy for them.

[carverlux]

If we trace back the 150 years of history of the camera lens, there were 2 distinct and intertwined tracks of development that continue to today - the one that is seeking the perfect reproduction quality and the one that speaks with a distinct voice away from the ultimate truth.

I think both have their correct and purposeful place in the world, for entirely different reasons and occasions, which validate their existence and hence value.

The most obvious development is getting the ultimate performance from a lens, and expressing these accomplishment in quantitative, repeatably measurable terms such as MTF, light fall-off and linear distortion. Aspheric surfaces, new techniques in coating, light absorption materials and floating elements contribute further to enhance this ultimate performance quest by making what was once impossible possible. Today's lenses, when properly built and meticulously assembled to match its original designs, can produce stunning quality in the hands of a careful photographer.

And I would say the post-WWII German and Japanese large format lens manufacturers mostly followed this path of development as their customers demanded lenses to record what was going on in the world. One needs go no further than the famous SINAR brand from Switzerland that rose to fame in this era, its name an acronym of Scientific, Industrial, Nature, Architecture and Reproduction to reflect the marketplace they dominated. The output of these lenses were photographic records paid for by their clients and they needed to look as much like the real thing as possible. These were tools of an exacting trade.

Just 20 years of so before WWII, the developed world started to see the peaking of and subsequent decline of another important paid photographic profession - the portrait studio. The craftsmen who learned how to light, pose, expose, mix chemicals, observe and adjust for the proper development of their film in the dark and print portraits from enlarging cameras were challenged by the onslaught of handheld cameras that were becoming popular, portable albeit much less capable.

These professionals made their living delivering their clients' likeness with a unique "artistic" value that they branded their own. The tools of that trade included distinct techniques that delighted their customers. And therefore, very often they pursued anything but the exact likeness of their clients. And their tools allowed them to add this special quality that built their businesses.

I am not sure how many people knew that Ansel Adams had been a photographic salesman, and that a part of how he funded his photographic expeditions came from dealing in photographic goods. This allowed him to test a lot of new equipment and in time turned him (and Edward Weston and others) onto the quest for technical exactness that championed the f64 group as a counterpoint to not only the pictorialists but professional portrait studio photographers of the day.

This movement's subsequent success in exhibitions and acceptance by a public that was simply in awe of the never-before-possible clarity, and the decline of the popular studio business had a strong impact on an industry that was developing their products. Gradually after WWII, lenses were almost always specified and designed by engineers, not photographers. Hence only one point of view prevailed - sharp lenses that delivered technical perfection. And we have since WWII almost 99% of all camera lenses made following this track.

Back to the "Noob question":

If you are looking for ultimate recto-, ortho- optical perfection, you will find various degrees of this perfection in designs from many German and Japanese firms. You can follow their published technical specs and learn to a large degree of accuracy how much perfection you can expect. And there are many lenses that meet this quest depending on your pocketbook, and these results are repeatable, predictable, and utterly logical. Sometimes undiscovered gems in the industrial world come up as incredible bargains as camera lenses because very few people know about them. I would put Schneider Kreuznach, Rodenstock (except the Imagon), Carl Zeiss, Voigtlander APO-Lanthar/Skopar, Nikon and Computar/Kowa Graphic/Kyvytar in this camp.

If you are looking to step in the shoes of history and are willing to embrace (maybe ever re-discover for yourself) stories from the past following how photography developed as an emerging artform and social medium, then everything from a magic lantern projection lens to a Pinkham & Smith woolly sock CAN bring you joy. I would say that Cooke Portrait, Wollensak Varium/Vitax/Verito/Veritar, Voigtlander Heliar in this group.

After spending 40 years around lenses of all sorts, the only thing I can share with a "Noob" is there is no right or wrong lens, but what feel right to YOU and how YOU want to tell YOUR story.

All the best and vive la différence!

Carver

[goamules]

I'm with Dan on a lot of this. When I started LF, not that long ago, the attraction of pre WWII lenses was that they were cheap, old, yet "still good." Or even "good enough". It was fun to buy something that cost a lot of money in 1900 for a small price in 2005. For pocket change you could buy several lenses and try them to see if you liked image quality. I'm somewhat a luddite, and historian, so shooting "that old fashioned camera" was part of the fun.

It was like when I was in school in the 70s in the South. We kids bought old muscle cars like Mustangs and Cameros because they were cheap and still very good. We couldn't afford new cars (and they sucked) By the 90s that $1500 Mustang had become the $20,000 mustang and it became the toy of the rich bankers and investors.

In some ways the big, old lenses are unique, and needed for certain applications.

[Dan Fromm]

Garrett, you're just another ignorant barbarian. Welcome to the club.

Carverlux, I think you've misrepresented all of the major trends in lens design since Petzval started designing lenses. The physicists and optical engineers who've designed lenses have tried to improve coverage, image quality over the field covered, and maximum aperture, and to reduce manufacturing costs. These goals aren't mutually compatible so all lenses made embody compromises.

The idea that photographers design lenses seems silly. That's not what they're trained to do. It is indeed true that a few photographers, e.g., the legendary portraitist Nicola Perscheid, asked lens manufacturers to make lenses that gave effects their standard lenses didn't. But asking isn't designing.

When I read stories on the Internet about how Voigtlaender's engineers worked on Heliar (in all senses) prescriptions in the 1920s and 1930s to achieve a smooth transition from in- to out-of-focus, I scratch my head. I doubt they had the computing power or conceptual tools needed to do that. Documentary proof to the contrary -- advertising/marketing fluff doesn't count -- would be very welcome.

[goamules]

I'm a barbarian and a pirate! Cool.

Well, the very earliest photographers did design lenses:

Joseph Petzval - The petzval (actually I'm not sure how much photography he did, but he associated with them, and designed for what they were asking - like you say).

Lerebours - Daguerreotypest. Lenses for Daguerreotype cameras. Corrected the petzval formula to have the actinic and visible focal planes coincide.

CC Harrison - Daguerreotypest. Learned to grind lenses in Europe (Ross?) and then designed the Globe lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Petzval wasn't a photographer, he was a mathematician. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Petzval

[lilmsmaggie]

Carver,

My compliments and thanks to you for providing historic insight. I belive I have to agree with Carver to a degree. Especially after reading his post, and reflecting on the writings of Ansel Adams. It would make sense that photographers would have some hand in the design of photographic lenses, whether it was direct or indirect isn't so much important as their "influence" in design or their photographic vision and interpretation of the resulting image.

When one considers that what began as independent optical ideas and designs for what would eventually become the telescope developed by Hans Lippershey, and Sacharis Jansen and others in the 17th century, improved upon by Galileo and futher refined by Sir Isaac Newton, and later into Schmidt-Cassegrain catadioptric designs and Ritchey-Chrétien, to me at least, speaks of innovation based on scientific investigation as well as personal need.

You can argue that Galileo was a scientist, but was his principle occupation that of an optician and lensmaker such a Lippershey? Necessity was the mother of his invention. The need to improve the visual quality of the images of the heavens to support his scientific theorems resulted in an improved optical instrument.

When I read Ansel's descriptions about lenses, it is all too apparent that he was quite versed and knowledgeable in regard to lens designs of his day. In some of his desciptive writings, he reads more like an optical technician than photographer.

Could it be that early lens designs were born of necessity by those whose interest and passion for photography, was an outgrowth of scientific investigation such as Galileo's?

I'm just thinking out loud, so don't beat me up too bad :D

[carverlux]

Garrett, you're just another ignorant barbarian. Welcome to the club.

Carverlux, I think you've misrepresented all of the major trends in lens design since Petzval started designing lenses. The physicists and optical engineers who've designed lenses have tried to improve coverage, image quality over the field covered, and maximum aperture, and to reduce manufacturing costs. These goals aren't mutually compatible so all lenses made embody compromises.

The idea that photographers design lenses seems silly. That's not what they're trained to do. It is indeed true that a few photographers, e.g., the legendary portraitist Nicola Perscheid, asked lens manufacturers to make lenses that gave effects their standard lenses didn't. But asking isn't designing.

When I read stories on the Internet about how Voigtlaender's engineers worked on Heliar (in all senses) prescriptions in the 1920s and 1930s to achieve a smooth transition from in- to out-of-focus, I scratch my head. I doubt they had the computing power or conceptual tools needed to do that. Documentary proof to the contrary -- advertising/marketing fluff doesn't count -- would be very welcome.

Mr. Fromm,

I offered a point of view that lenses had followed two tracks of development, and that eventually in the last 50 or so years, one of these tracks prevailed - the technically excellent one. And the world has today, and will continue to see, plenty of new, even more technically advanced lenses because optical engineers designed them to their view of what they think is good by their training, especially if customer and market demands were no longer recognized and heeded.

My reference to photographers specifying lenses refers to the common practice of lens companies in the early 20th century to ask for the endorsement of, and sometimes quoted, photographers who used prototypes and suggested improvements that resulted in a fuller endorsement or a different product than what the engineers alone came up with. I am not aware that this practice is done today, at least not publicly so. Also, I don't know that any photographers actually DESIGNED the lens vs. just SPECIFIED the photographic outcome that they were after. I cannot tell you whether this is only marketing hype but according to multiple Pinkham and Smith brochures, their lenses were "suggested" by various photographers - and these animals are far from technically perfect as a trained optical engineer would want them to be.

Specifically in the case of Nicola Perscheid and Emil Busch, the 1923 German Patent Nr. 372059 that covered the designs that bore his name did not actually list an optical layout but the effect of using chromatic aberration as a tool to create a diffusion effect. This is followed by many subsequent soft focus patents that were filed by competent optical engineers to find various paths to the the results that their photographer customers desired. The latest one on the first page of a Google Patents search was in 2003 from Asahi Pentax, US Patent 6552857, issued April 22, 2003. One can find many more by just specifying "soft focus" in the search field. I personally do not believe that any of these optical engineers who received their patents were not aware of the opportunity for technical excellence stemming from Petzval's pioneering work to the present day.

Moreover, if you refer to Charles Abel's "Professional Portrait Lighting" and surveyed the lenses used by portrait studios they reported in 1947, you will find that 33% of the photographers who reported what they used said Wollensak, 14% used Voigtländer and 11% used Cookes. Bausch & Lomb and Goerz are both at 8%, Dallmeyer and Zeiss at 3%. Schneider Kreuznach and Rodenstock, brands that we hold in high regard in technical accomplishments today were not reported in this book even once.

I am trying to make the point that the different worlds that drove the optical business over the last century - that of customers demanding subjective vs. objective performance - have unfortunately to me at least - become only one, one of measurable, repeatable excellence or hard rights and hard wrongs, and lured many to condemn the "objectivity-challenged" as less than correct. The odd brave one like the Fuji SF and Minolta SF/STF were rare exceptions. I personally would not want to take such a stance as I find beauty and poetry in BOTH technically perfect and subjectively influenced lenses like the ones above.

I hope that this is a good clarification of my point of view, and that a one-sided argument for technical excellence is not one that will serve all of us well all the time.

Carver

[CCHarrison]

I'm a barbarian and a pirate! Cool.

CC Harrison - Daguerreotypest. Learned to grind lenses in Europe (Ross?) and then designed the Globe lens.

Garrett,

Where did you learn that CC learned to grind in Europe ? Just Curious.

Thanks,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Carver, thanks for the reply.

Manufacturers' names are not design types. Knowing which makes US portrait studios used in 1947 is interesting even though the names you listed account for only 78% of the total. Where's Kodak? Where's Ilex? What was the response rate? Which Wollensak, which Voigtlaender, ... , lenses the studios used is of more interest for this discussion than which makers lenses' they used.

Celebrity endorsements? These days they're purchased. Hasn't it always been thus?

About Schneider's and Rodenstock's absence from the 1947 survey. Y'know, between the wars they were not the first rate manufacturers we now love. They were distinctly bottom drawer. Similarly for the Japanese makers.

Portraiture is one application. There were others. I really wish we had production data. Given the mix of old lenses offered for sale now, its hard to believe that portrait studios were much of the market for lenses. All those tessar types on eBay ...

Impossible to deny the existence of soft focus lenses aimed, possibly primarily, at portrait photographers. Hard to know how much of total production they made up.

I stand by my statement that from the beginning of history lens' designers have tried for faster, covers more, costs less to make. Artistic considerations have always been secondary.

After WWII objective measurement of some aspects of image quality (resolution across the field first, then contrast too, then MTF at a variety of spatial frequencies) came in. Easy to understand how this silenced discussion of the more subjective aspects of image quality that are important to you. Teaching to the test isn't new.

At the moment there are fads for soft focus and bokeh, whatever the proponents mean by the term. It isn't clear that devotees of either have ever been more than a small minority. I'm all for their doing whatever makes them happy, do wish they wouldn't try to convince me that history is on their side or that the fad is not a new development.

Not directly relevant, but I also have trouble grasping why there's a micro 4/3 fad involving using fast lenses. As the LF types insist, there's no substitute for receptor acreage.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jim Galli]

Dan, you old troll. :p

On a much smaller scale tell me where I read this little bit of history. I'll probably mutilate it, but, as we know, lens design is like a water balloon. Poke it in here and it will bulge out there. Somewhere I remember reading that Zeiss at some point in history made the conscious decision that their lenses would have more pleasing out of focus and somewhat less over-all sharpness than their Japanese cousins which is why all the people in Asia are paying stupid money for Zeiss lenses 80 years later. Am I loco.

Whenever I go to the sites where folk are discussing "bokey" in tiny format I have to laugh. Their best scenario that they pay large $$$ for is laughable compared to the worst large format lens ever. As you know, a Rodenstock Plasmat will make lovely out of focus area at f5.6.

[Dan Fromm]

Jim, life is good under my bridge and I have some great goat recipes. If you ever come east to visit your daughter, drop by at Under The Bridge, 08034 and I'll fed you some goat. You'll like it, I promise.

Funny, I thought it was Leica that improved hokum at the expense of sharpness. Until proven otherwise, its all marketing fluff.

Cheers,

Dan

[Oren Grad]

Somewhere I remember reading that Zeiss at some point in history made the conscious decision that their lenses would have more pleasing out of focus and somewhat less over-all sharpness than their Japanese cousins which is why all the people in Asia are paying stupid money for Zeiss lenses 80 years later.

Jim, if the intended reference is to postwar glass, it is to laugh. Apparently there are some good ones among their most recent designs, but for me, growing up with small and medium format, Zeiss always meant "harsh" until proven otherwise. More's the pity that Rolleiflexes and V-Hasselblads were saddled with all those nasty Planars. (Note to Dan: I don't mean necessarily that they consciously traded off refined bokeh - probably not - just that the results most certainly weren't favoring it. I.e., consistent with your view of optical design history.)

[Jim Galli]

Wish I could remember what I read and where. Was it in William's Image Clarity?

[John Kasaian]

There are still plenty of opportunites to scarf up old glass on the cheap! Of course it is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get (well, not really with a box of chocolates the ingredients are usually printed somewhere on the bottom.) Lenses off old folders, magic lanterns, and projection lenses are all fair game---you pays your money and takes your chances.

[carverlux]

Carver, thanks for the reply.

Manufacturers' names are not design types. Knowing which makes US portrait studios used in 1947 is interesting even though the names you listed account for only 78% of the total. Where's Kodak? Where's Ilex? What was the response rate? Which Wollensak, which Voigtlaender, ... , lenses the studios used is of more interest for this discussion than which makers lenses' they used.

Celebrity endorsements? These days they're purchased. Hasn't it always been thus?

About Schneider's and Rodenstock's absence from the 1947 survey. Y'know, between the wars they were not the first rate manufacturers we now love. They were distinctly bottom drawer. Similarly for the Japanese makers.

Portraiture is one application. There were others. I really wish we had production data. Given the mix of old lenses offered for sale now, its hard to believe that portrait studios were much of the market for lenses. All those tessar types on eBay ...

Impossible to deny the existence of soft focus lenses aimed, possibly primarily, at portrait photographers. Hard to know how much of total production they made up.

I stand by my statement that from the beginning of history lens' designers have tried for faster, covers more, costs less to make. Artistic considerations have always been secondary.

After WWII objective measurement of some aspects of image quality (resolution across the field first, then contrast too, then MTF at a variety of spatial frequencies) came in. Easy to understand how this silenced discussion of the more subjective aspects of image quality that are important to you. Teaching to the test isn't new.

At the moment there are fads for soft focus and bokeh, whatever the proponents mean by the term. It isn't clear that devotees of either have ever been more than a small minority. I'm all for their doing whatever makes them happy, do wish they wouldn't try to convince me that history is on their side or that the fad is not a new development.

Not directly relevant, but I also have trouble grasping why there's a micro 4/3 fad involving using fast lenses. As the LF types insist, there's no substitute for receptor acreage.

Cheers,

Dan

Mr. Fromm,

Please accept that I submit my replies in complete humility as a newcomer to this community where you and others have been so generously raising the collective awareness of all who came. I wish only to add a more inclusive point of view.

To answer your question regarding Chas Abel's book, the total number of lens admissions were 98, as not all 120+ photographers surveyed listed what they used. Wollensaks were all the normal suspects like Vitax, Varium, Verito and Voigtländers were almost always Heliars. Kodak was not listed, but Eastman was mentioned only ONCE, Ilex TWICE.

Regarding your stance on optical engineers, I believe we are in complete agreement. Most of the ones I know are fanatical about making the next breakthrough and achieving perfect balance of all available variables to master the task at hand. But we all know that the discipline of optical engineering is one of optimization as Jim Galli so aptly described in his water balloon analogy, not one-dimensional perfection. Therefore, I know optical engineering as a profession offers great job security as a result.

However, we also know that engineering and business are two entirely different animals and depending on who leads whom, the results can be castastrophic from both ends of the same spectrum. This one needs careful balancing too. One only needs to see how many prominent optical engineering firms failed as a result of lax business discipline and perhaps even more frightening, how many crappy lenses have been built by opportunistic businesses who know very little about how to make a lens that learned customers will die to own.

To your point about bokeh being a fad: I made an observation long ago how the most expensive Zeiss lenses available to civilians, the Master Primes at $20,000+ EACH, are NOT only sold on their objective performance but also their subjective quality including "out of focus picture" and "breathing" as key differentiators from lesser rivals, including their own lines of less expensive alternatives. How optical engineering contributed to these qualities must be well understood in Oberkochen or it would be difficult to demonstrate it to their well-heeled DoP customers' satisfaction why they want 5x the price for a Master Prime over their own Compact Prime. You can see this on the Zeiss site under the Cine lens section, at FAQ - Compact Primes.

Is the world going Cine and thus need Cine lenses? Perhaps not those on LFF but every single DSLR announced in the last 18 months can do video, most can do HD video, and some even HD Video at 60 fps. Lenses used for video must really "behave" in-focus as well as out-of-focus because to "post" it out is beyond the sanity or budget of most people. Those who do not observe these visual quality cues will only suffer at the hands of their competitors in the market place.

In reality, we all know that distraction of any type is not good and the goal of good optical engineering is always to reduce these to a minimum without compromising something else. Simply because these defects cannot be fixed after the lens is designed: disturbing bokeh must be eliminated when the layout was first conceived, just like linear distortion at the edge of the image circle, or coma, or field curvature.

All in all, I really enjoy reading everyone's musings, and I hope that by my replies I am adding to this enjoyment for everyone, and not making it less fun.

All the best,
Carver

[Dan Fromm]

Carver,

The gnomes of Oberkochen, successors to the gnomes of Aarau, have more computing power, and better software too, than the ancients. Their customers, directors of photography, have many quaint beliefs about the importance for story-telling of consistency of lighting, imaging, ... They may be right. Actually, the customers are mainly rental houses. DPs can't all afford to own the latest most best gear.

The DPs' beliefs weren't shared by many of the bozos who hosed camcorders around and I doubt they're shared by the bozos who shoot video with their cell phones or even digital SLRs. But then, the DPs have been brought up to tell stories properly and the bozos haven't.

The evidence from press photography and movie theaters suggests that the DPs are badly mistaken. No one but me complained when the news services gave their reporters digital cameras and acoustic couplers in the early '80s. We got the images fast, we got them bad. Have you gone to the movies recently? The damned projectionists have better things to do than focus the projectors and the audience doesn't seem to care.

For that matter, have you ever seen any decent S8? HD ain't there yet. You know something? I've retired my Beaulieus (plural). If I ever feel the need to make another movie I'll grit my teeth, get a digital something-or-other, and shoot HD.

Cheers,

Dan

Side point. "Hollywood" has long been receptive to lenses that still photographers scorned. When TTH was selling uncoated f/2 6/4 double Gauss lenses to the studios, 35 mm still photographers, who had twice the film acreage, wouldn't go near them. Six glass air surfaces seems to have been their limit. Tessar, sonnar, that's it. No Ser. VIIbs for them either.

Another side point. Merchant lens makers have had it very hard for quite a while. Even the gnomes of Aarau failed.

[lilmsmaggie]

All in all, I really enjoy reading everyone's musings, and I hope that by my replies I am adding to this enjoyment for everyone, and not making it less fun.

All the best,
Carver

Well, I can't speak for anybody else but I'm enjoying :D

[lilmsmaggie]

Ok - let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. Depending on how a lens is constructed will generally determine the name given to the lens?

Probably didn't say that right. :( Or for example, I have a Rodenstock 90mm 6.8 lens. It is constructed of 6 elements in 4 groups. Even though Rodenstock call this lens a grandagon-n, its of the Planar design type, yes, or am I all wet?

So where does the grandagon come from???

[Oren Grad]

Ok - let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. Depending on how a lens is constructed will generally determine the name given to the lens?

Occasionally, but usually not. Sometimes it starts that way but ends up otherwise - it's been many generations since the Schneider Symmar was symmetrical, strictly speaking.


Or for example, I have a Rodenstock 90mm 6.8 lens. It is constructed of 6 elements in 4 groups. Even though Rodenstock call this lens a grandagon-n, its of the Planar design type, yes, or am I all wet?

Ummm, there is perhaps excessive moisture. ;) No, 6/4 does not make a Planar.


So where does the grandagon come from???

It's just a hokey name invented by a marketer for a lens with a really wide field of view. Schneider's "Angulon" sounds perhaps a shade more diginified.

[Oren Grad]

Occasionally, but usually not.

Actually, I should qualify that. I'm more of a user of modern lenses. Older lenses often (but not always) are named for their generic optical design - e.g. Tessars, Dagors. The classic lens experts here will know lots more than I do about the rules and the exceptions.

[carverlux]

Ok - let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. Depending on how a lens is constructed will generally determine the name given to the lens?

Probably didn't say that right. :( Or for example, I have a Rodenstock 90mm 6.8 lens. It is constructed of 6 elements in 4 groups. Even though Rodenstock call this lens a grandagon-n, its of the Planar design type, yes, or am I all wet?

So where does the grandagon come from???

lilmsmaggie,

The Grandagon can be classified as a "Reversed Telephoto" type design. Not only did Rodenstock make lenses based on this general layout, but so did Carl Zeiss with their Biogon's and Schneider Kreuznach with their Super Angulon's. The name Grandagon was probably coined based on the French term for wide angle - "Grand Angle" - but I cannot claim this as fact.

As an excellent introduction to a "Lens Noob", I can heartily recommend an invaluable resource for learning the genesis and development of the various types of photographic lenses. It is Professor Rudolf Kingslake's "A History of the Photographic Lens". It is a great read, an accurate reference and is still available for sale. You can also search through most of its content on Google Books because it had been partially scanned. The discussion on lenses similar to the Grandagon starts on page 150.

Enjoy!
Carver

[lilmsmaggie]

Ummm, there is perhaps excessive moisture. ;)

Let me guess, just like a noob I ventured into the deep end of the pool ;)

Thanks again Carter

[Dan Fromm]

Actually, I should qualify that. I'm more of a user of modern lenses. Older lenses often (but not always) are named for their generic optical design - e.g. Tessars, Dagors. The classic lens experts here will know lots more than I do about the rules and the exceptions.Hmm. Dagor is an acronym for Doppel Anastigmat Goerz. Goerz' double anastigmat. Fine, but Goerz made more than one design of double anastigmat. There's the Dagor, six elements in two groups. And then there are the dialytes, four elements in four groups, with lots of trade names, including Celor, Dogmar, and none at all. I was once sold a "none at all" as a Dagor.

Ain't no rules where marketing is concerned.

lilmsmaggie, homo sapiens is an animal that's very good at seeing patterns, even when there is none.

[goamules]

Garrett,

Where did you learn that CC learned to grind in Europe ? Just Curious.

Thanks,

Dan

Hi Dan, I wish I could recall where I read that. A few Months ago I went to the Center for Creative Photography library and checked out a dozen books. I was researching a reversing prism I have that was found in situ with a Harrison & S. Globe. Somewhere in all that reading I found a small bio on Harrison. If I recall, it said that he traveled to either England or possibly France, and learned grinding from one of the established makers. It was someone good, but I can't remember for sure if it was Ross. Then the ref said he returned to NY and started grinding using what he'd learned. I know it's not correct to not give a citation, but I did read this and not "I heard....." I'll try to find it again.

[goamules]

Or maybe it was from Fitz, who learned in Europe? A brain is a terrible thing to waste....


UPDATE edited: It was Fitz, so I was getting my history skewed.
http://craigcamera.com/dag/h_table.htm#Harrison,%20Charles%20C. (http://craigcamera.com/dag/h_table.htm#Harrison,%20Charles%20C.)

[Jim Galli]

There is a language to this, and it's as confusing as the english language generally. Every rule gets broken but after a while the names and numbers begin to fall in place.

Starting historically helps a little. Mr. Petzval calculated the first usable lens design. It was flawed but happily so. Portraitists have loved it for it's flaws since 1840. Dan notes that Petzval wasn't a photographer. Nobody was a photographer in 1840! So anything that uses Petzval's design in any of it's many variations we simply call a Petzval. Petzval's were made by myriads of lens makers. A good example to further confuse you, Wollensak, a lens company, made Petzvals with the trade names Vitax, Vesta, Series A. So some happy seller like me might say I've got a No. 3 Vitax and expect you to know what I'm talking about. Many of the companies numbered their product line to signify the size. This is also confusing as a No. 3 Vitax can be at least 2 different sizes of lens as they changed it in the middle of the run.

Next historically (common lenses lads) would be the Rapid Rectilinear type. Also called an Aplanat in Europe. Again there are myriad of companies that made RR's with ton's of trade names for their RR. Euryscop is one of them. The Euryscop was made by Voigtlander in Germany. It is a very early Aplanat. Voigtlander made Euryscop in 7 different Series. The Series indicated whether it was a Wide Angle, a Portrait, A this, A that. Each series had size numbers. Sometimes they'd put the size on the lens. Sometimes not. Sometimes they didn't even put the name on the lens because some other guy that thought he invented it was suing them. Everybody made Rapid Rectilinears. Even Cooke made Rapid Rectilinears, but they weren't called a Cooke. So a Voigtlander Euryscop Series IV #4 tells me it's a Rapid Rectilinear type, series IV tells me it's an f6, and #4 tells me it's a 14.33 inch focal length. I know that a RR generally has an angle of view of about 66 degrees, so a little rapid mathematical calculation tells me that 14.33 inch lens will cover an 11X14 inch plate nicely.

Then things got real interesting in the 1890's. People started computing different ways to make an anastigmat. Dagor's, Heliar's, Tessar's, Cooke Triplet's, Plasmat's, these are all anastigmats from that era. If you thought it was confusing in the paragraph above, fasten your seat belt. Somewhat typically, we'll ususally assign the inventor's given trade name that was first used to other companies lenses that are making that design. Most commonly, and there are billions, we'll say for instance, the Astragon I'm selling is a Tessar type. Or the 107mm f3.5 Kodak Ektar I'm selling is a Heliar type. A Dagor is almost always a Dagor. But they're confusing because they were made for about 100 years by several companies and quality can vary. But they're all a Dagor. Or I might sell my little Wray 8 1/4" Process lens and mention that it's a Dagor type. Same formula as a Dagor. The very earliest Symmar's were Dagor type. I have 2 that I love.

If you're truly interested and I haven't confused and discouraged you beyond repair, there are 2 very helpful resources I use a lot. The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum is sold in CD form on Ebay. It's a large digital reference library of lens history by maker. Not perfect, but helpful and I'm glad it was compiled. Next is Seth Broder's collection of original catalogs (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html) that he graciously makes available on line. These are wonderfully helpful. Finally, there's the people here. I'm always glad to try to help folks with their questions.

[lilmsmaggie]

If you're truly interested and I haven't confused and discouraged you beyond repair, there are 2 very helpful resources I use a lot. The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum is sold in CD form on Ebay. It's a large digital reference library of lens history by maker. Not perfect, but helpful and I'm glad it was compiled. Next is Seth Broder's collection of original catalogs (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html) that he graciously makes available on line. These are wonderfully helpful. Finally, there's the people here. I'm always glad to try to help folks with their questions.

If he looks confused, sounds confused, then he must be confused ;)

Seriously, I think this is fascinating as well as interesting. I won't claim to fully understand all of the technical ramifications but that's never stopped me.

I really appreciate the contributions everyone has made up to this point, who has participated in this thread so far. Quite illuminating.

Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, I am by nature very inquisitive of those areas that I have developed an interest in, e.g., music performance, stringed instruments, astronomy, computers, telescopes, photography, etc.

When I studied the Cello, I dabbled in the study of violin making and acoustics related to stringed instruments. I even visited with and talked to several violin and bow makers here in Northern California.

My ex father-in-law, a retired machinist and tool & die maker, was the same way. Although, I can safely say I don't quite have the inquisitive itch as bad as he did :D But I think he would agree with me in saying, it's a good idea to become as familiar as possible with the tools you intend on or will be required to use.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Maggie, your ex-father-in-law led you astray. One of the dark secrets that lens accumulators don't let out is that all lenses of the same focal length shoot pretty much the same at the same aperture as long as they're not used on formats larger than they're intended to cover. Most of the noises people make about lens' signatures are exactly parallel to the noises audiophiles make when trying to explain differences between similar pieces of high end audio equipment. They go all mystical, objective measurements vanish, and sometimes they lose tempers and hurl insults.

I'll say it again. I've run blind tests and persons skilled in the art have almost always been unable to match a shot to the lens used to take it. The big exception: people who know that I use a 38 Biogon on 2x3 can pick shots taken with it from shots taken with any of my other wide lenses because they know its the only lens I use that doesn't cover 2x3. I can tell shots taken with my little 1.75"/2.8 Elcan from similar ones taken with the Biogon because the Elcan goes to hell near its coverage limits and the Biogon doesn't. That's why I don't use the Elcan.

I'm a cellist as well as an amateur photographer and accumulator. Lenses are in no way like musical instruments. They're industrial products and generally quite uniform. Much more peas in pods than string instruments or bows.

Not only am I an accumulator, I try the damned things out. They divide handily into good enough to use and not good enough to use. Differences between the lousy ones aren't interesting, between the good ones don't matter.

So you will know, I've been certified as an ignorant barbarian by Andre Oldani of Alpa for pointing out that what can be done with a 38 Biogon on a very expensive Alpa 12 can be done as well on a much less costly Century Graphic. I think my friend Mr. Galli will agree that I just don't understand what's truly important. Comes from eating too much goat.

Jim's advice that you buy a copy of the VM and look at the catalogs on Seth's site is good, but remember that catalogs are sales tools and not always correct. The advice that you read Kingslake's history is also good, but be aware that his use of English is a little idiosyncratic and that he slights some of his juniors, e.g., the legendary G. H. Cook. Whatever you do, maintain a healthy skepticism. And if you ever get any lenses, ask them what they can do for you.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[Jim Galli]

Dan,

Look up 1Sam. 15:14 :D:D jg

[Stephane]

Besides giving different signatures, some of these lenses are really pretty. Like that one I just received is by far the best looking of the herd.
If you understand french, there's this guy (Charles Fabre) who wrote some books on lenses as they were coming out from 1889 to 1906. If you dont, there are tables of series, focal length that anybody could get.
Here is a link:
Charles Fabre (http://www.suaudeau.eu/memo/Fabre/Fabre.html)

[goamules]

...I'll say it again. I've run blind tests and persons skilled in the art have almost always been unable to match a shot to the lens used to take it. ...

A challenge, great! How about if someone has, say, a 300mm petzval against a 300mm rectilinear and see if anyone can tell? Oh...that already happened when Jim got his notes on his Euryscope portrait mixed up in another post. Several of us saw the picture and said to ourself, "self - that thar's a petzval, not a Euryscop."

What about a taste test challenge? You provide a 300mm Cooke or Heliar, and another person provides a 300mm Tessar (or whatever "same focal length" you want that are different types) to a 3rd party photographer. Identical photos are made and posted. If the subject that provided the Tessar correctly guesses it's results, you trade the "better" lens for the Tessar. Let's see...I need to look around for my Tessar....

[lilmsmaggie]

Um, Maggie, your ex-father-in-law led you astray. One of the dark secrets that lens accumulators don't let out is that all lenses of the same focal length shoot pretty much the same at the same aperture as long as they're not used on formats larger than they're intended to cover. Most of the noises people make about lens' signatures are exactly parallel to the noises audiophiles make when trying to explain differences between similar pieces of high end audio equipment. They go all mystical, objective measurements vanish, and sometimes they lose tempers and hurl insults.

I'll say it again. I've run blind tests and persons skilled in the art have almost always been unable to match a shot to the lens used to take it. The big exception: people who know that I use a 38 Biogon on 2x3 can pick shots taken with it from shots taken with any of my other wide lenses because they know its the only lens I use that doesn't cover 2x3. I can tell shots taken with my little 1.75"/2.8 Elcan from similar ones taken with the Biogon because the Elcan goes to hell near its coverage limits and the Biogon doesn't. That's why I don't use the Elcan.

I'm a cellist as well as an amateur photographer and accumulator. Lenses are in no way like musical instruments. They're industrial products and generally quite uniform. Much more peas in pods than string instruments or bows.

Not only am I an accumulator, I try the damned things out. They divide handily into good enough to use and not good enough to use. Differences between the lousy ones aren't interesting, between the good ones don't matter.

So you will know, I've been certified as an ignorant barbarian by Andre Oldani of Alpa for pointing out that what can be done with a 38 Biogon on a very expensive Alpa 12 can be done as well on a much less costly Century Graphic. I think my friend Mr. Galli will agree that I just don't understand what's truly important. Comes from eating too much goat.

Jim's advice that you buy a copy of the VM and look at the catalogs on Seth's site is good, but remember that catalogs are sales tools and not always correct. The advice that you read Kingslake's history is also good, but be aware that his use of English is a little idiosyncratic and that he slights some of his juniors, e.g., the legendary G. H. Cook. Whatever you do, maintain a healthy skepticism. And if you ever get any lenses, ask them what they can do for you.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan


Dan - I didn't need help from him to go astray. I was well on my way already :D

I will confess to being considered an "audiophile," however, I don't go mystical. Whatever equipment I listen to is compared to a "live" performance of that instrument or that ensemble. I'm sure you'll agree that most musicians are not audiophiles and vice versa. I have a very good ear for nuances. Heck, what can I say. I'm just dang inquisitve! I like to know what and why -- but only if I'm REALLY interested. I delve too deeply in minutia for my own good :)

My ex father-in-law was the same way: He had to know what made it do what it did --and why.

As far as being an accumulator: The only things I really accumulate are: Books, music, foreign & U.S. coins and paper money. My cello and all my bows had to go bye-bye because of the divorce although I still have all my sheet music.

Oh yeah, I collected cello bows too - but lets not go there :p

Esssentially, I was describing my tendency to examine. I wasn't making a comparison.

Please don't give me any ideas. The last thing I need to do is start collecting lenses and cameras :eek:

[Dan Fromm]

Dan,

Look up 1Sam. 15:14 :D:D jgSounds like goats to me. Thinking of which, its time for supper.