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

[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?

[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

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

Jimi had it right, with his last song

Do you happen to have a twin brother?

[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.