fidget
Lemon magnet
I have read of the "qualities" of older glass and in particular how say, an SLR zoom is a compromise of function over performance and that nearly any good prime lens of almost any age will give a better performance than a zoom lens.
My 50s/60s Voigtlander Color Skopar lenses of my Vito B and CLR give the expected pleasant rendition in my images (all B&W), although not too sharp. By this I mean that printed at 8x10 they give just about acceptable prints under normal viewing.
I recently had to replace my digi p&s for web shots and the like. One of the things which I liked (the novelty) was it's ability to give a live image in B&W. Great! A little help in the pre-visualisation of shots I might attempt with 35mm. I guess that it's natural that I shot a few digi frames of the same scene I shot in 35mm.
Maybe it's also natural to compare the 35mm print with the screen image of the digi, just for interest, you know.
Well, I shouldn't have done that
Now I know that film offers more image qualities than simply resolution, but I didn't expect a cheap consumer 6mp digi to better the vintage Color Skopars in this respect. I'm surprised and a little dissapointed.
Is a modern SLR zoom lens so much improved?
Huge doubts now worry me. I have just got an R2 and have the CV 35 f2.5 and a 50mm Nokton which I have yet to take on an outing (all test shots etc are just fine).
Is my expectation of the performance of older glass unrealistic?
My 50s/60s Voigtlander Color Skopar lenses of my Vito B and CLR give the expected pleasant rendition in my images (all B&W), although not too sharp. By this I mean that printed at 8x10 they give just about acceptable prints under normal viewing.
I recently had to replace my digi p&s for web shots and the like. One of the things which I liked (the novelty) was it's ability to give a live image in B&W. Great! A little help in the pre-visualisation of shots I might attempt with 35mm. I guess that it's natural that I shot a few digi frames of the same scene I shot in 35mm.
Maybe it's also natural to compare the 35mm print with the screen image of the digi, just for interest, you know.
Well, I shouldn't have done that
Now I know that film offers more image qualities than simply resolution, but I didn't expect a cheap consumer 6mp digi to better the vintage Color Skopars in this respect. I'm surprised and a little dissapointed. Is a modern SLR zoom lens so much improved?
Huge doubts now worry me. I have just got an R2 and have the CV 35 f2.5 and a 50mm Nokton which I have yet to take on an outing (all test shots etc are just fine).
Is my expectation of the performance of older glass unrealistic?
V
varjag
Guest
Color Skopar is a 4-element Tessar type lens. It wasn't a top performer in its heyday, especially at open apertures. That's not even factoring in condition of a vintage lens and sample variation of cheaper camera kits of that age.
Then there is a printing method. If you do wet print, the result is as much justice to you and your enlarger lens as to the taking lens.
Then there is a printing method. If you do wet print, the result is as much justice to you and your enlarger lens as to the taking lens.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Kent
Finally at home...
I have much more experience with SLRs and about those I can say:
If you want perfection, go for a modern lens. If you want character, go for an old one.
If you want perfection, go for a modern lens. If you want character, go for an old one.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have found that older lenses, in good condition haze free etc., can give very good and surprising images. I also have have two digi cams with zooms that are more than adequate performers. The same can be said for the zoom lenses I have for my Nikon SLRs. Yes I do have some Leica lenses which are very good also but I would not say that they make my heart sing. They all seem to perform well enough if in good condition.
Bob
Bob
iml
Well-known
I think the only generality that applies is: it all depends on the glass, and on your taste. Not all old glass is good, not all new glass is bad.
Ian
Ian
Toby
On the alert
I'm not surprised a 6mp digi trounced 50's equipment. More often than not this is because it is relatively easy to extract maximum potential quality from a P&S, that is why non photographers like them so much. I find it generally much harder to get the full potental out of film, especially in regards to getting good development of negatives for printing or scanning, ( I don't soup my own stuff and have had to look long and hard to get decent processing from a third party). Also remember old cameras may no longer have accurate shutters, and may have haze or other nasties in the lens, so may not be working to specification. Once you nail your film workflow, then yes, film will trounce you digicam, but there's a lot of hard work involved.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Kent said:If you want perfection, go for a modern lens. If you want character, go for an old one.
Hey Kent
What's perfection? I don't understand your suggestion: "if you want perfection, go for a modern lens". A picture without character isn't perfect, a lens that cannot give character isn't perfect, a portrait which so sharp that we can see micro-spots on the skin, isn't perfect ... etc.
Fidget, if you want perfection, take the lens which gives you the pictures you have in mind. If you want super-sharpness and super-contrast, go for a modern lens; sharpness is fun, but it's one of the less important feature of a good picture. Masters of photography haven't ever been obsessed by sharpness - see all those fuzzy, blurry portraits by HCB; even Salgado published fuzzy pictures (the portrait on the cover of Serra Pelada for instance).
If you want to make photography, take the lens that suits your vision. Then you'll get perfection.
Mikael.N
Established
You can not compare a print to computor screen.print the digicam shoots on paper and then you can compare against film based photograpy.if you have them in tour hand you have photos,in the computor you have digital files.
pizzahut88
Well-known
We are all talking nonsense here . . .
We are all talking nonsense here . . .
What's character anyway? What's modern?
More contrast, more saturation is modern?
What's the right amount of contrast anyway?
Did not the old glass have the perfect amount of contrast?
And modern lenses are on steroids?
Modern zen of lenses is wrong . . .
Really . . . It's all relative.
Remember, it's your OWN taste that matters.
How do you like coffee?
We are all talking nonsense here . . .
Marc-A. said:Hey Kent
What's perfection? I don't understand your suggestion: "if you want perfection, go for a modern lens". A picture without character isn't perfect, a lens that cannot give character isn't perfect, a portrait which so sharp that we can see micro-spots on the skin, isn't perfect ... etc.
Fidget, if you want perfection, take the lens which gives you the pictures you have in mind. If you want super-sharpness and super-contrast, go for a modern lens; sharpness is fun, but it's one of the less important feature of a good picture. Masters of photography haven't ever been obsessed by sharpness - see all those fuzzy, blurry portraits by HCB; even Salgado published fuzzy pictures (the portrait on the cover of Serra Pelada for instance).
If you want to make photography, take the lens that suits your vision. Then you'll get perfection.
What's character anyway? What's modern?
More contrast, more saturation is modern?
What's the right amount of contrast anyway?
Did not the old glass have the perfect amount of contrast?
And modern lenses are on steroids?
Modern zen of lenses is wrong . . .
Really . . . It's all relative.
Remember, it's your OWN taste that matters.
How do you like coffee?
fidget
Lemon magnet
Thanks for your suggestions. As I said, aside from other qualities, the resolution surprised me. I generally shoot MF where I get more than enough resolution if care is taken. I am trying to get more out of my 35mm gear, partly because it will keep me in practice for MF film work and it's very much more flexible.
I enjoy using older cameras, I guess that I have unreasonable expectations of some.
I enjoy using older cameras, I guess that I have unreasonable expectations of some.
mfogiel
Veteran
Kent said:
"If you want perfection, go for a modern lens. If you want character, go for an old one. "
And if you want both perfection and character, get the C Sonnar 50/1.5...
"If you want perfection, go for a modern lens. If you want character, go for an old one. "
And if you want both perfection and character, get the C Sonnar 50/1.5...
peterm1
Veteran
I own a lot of old lenses of various sorts - Leica and Canon rangefinder, Nikon, Canon and Pentax SLR. I think that old glass can definitely be superb. It is surprising when you see the results produced by a 1930s era Tessar lens for instance, and realise that a lens produced 70 years ago to very modest specs can, if kept within its design parameters, produce remarkable images. Some - such as the Elmar (a Tessar like design) are not technically brilliant. In this case it only has an f 3.5 maximum aperture and the MTF curves when you see them are all over the place indicating that the image especially suffers in the outer third of the image. But for all of that it produces mighty fine images.
Why - well only having 4 lens elements helps (compared to up to maybe a dozen in a modern zoom.) Because it has a modest spec it does not need a lot of elements to correct the abberations that faster lenses cause. Indeed in the days before multi coating it could not have worked with lots of elements, as there would have been too much flare. So the old lenses compromised in general to get better results.
Many unsung or relativly unsung lenses produce wonderful images. Let me give you a few of my favourites (and I will leave out most of the Leica ones focussing on some old mainly SLR lenses
Most of the early Pentax takumar lenses are superb. Well made (like the proverbial brick out house) as sharp as, and with nice colour rendition. The f1.8 55m lens, the f1.8 85mm, thef3.5 35mm, the f1.4 50mm, the f3.5 135mm and the f2.5 105mm to name a few. Similarly with the Nikon range. I have only tried a few Canon FL mount SLR lenses but have not been disappointed. And of course the Leica, early Summicron 50, the Summitar 50, the Summaron 35 and so on are great lenses and if anything the early Canon rangefinder lenses of similar spec are even better taken as a group.
Modern computerised design and manufacturing proceesses together with modern materials such as polycarbonate plastics have allowed the design and construction of some very flexible and competent zooms at good prcies. Some are almost unbelievably good. But in my opinion only a few manage to match let alone exceed the results of the very best of the old prime lenses. In this case I am not measuring "results" by sharpness alone. Lenses need to have resulving power, but as ifs often remarked upon and debated in this forum other characteristics like Bokeh, colour rendition and so forth also go a long way to producing lovely images.
Having said that when I go away on holidays these days it is almost always my Nikon D70s and a couple of AF zooms that I carry - not a bag full of old lenses. And I am happy enough with the results.
Why - well only having 4 lens elements helps (compared to up to maybe a dozen in a modern zoom.) Because it has a modest spec it does not need a lot of elements to correct the abberations that faster lenses cause. Indeed in the days before multi coating it could not have worked with lots of elements, as there would have been too much flare. So the old lenses compromised in general to get better results.
Many unsung or relativly unsung lenses produce wonderful images. Let me give you a few of my favourites (and I will leave out most of the Leica ones focussing on some old mainly SLR lenses
Most of the early Pentax takumar lenses are superb. Well made (like the proverbial brick out house) as sharp as, and with nice colour rendition. The f1.8 55m lens, the f1.8 85mm, thef3.5 35mm, the f1.4 50mm, the f3.5 135mm and the f2.5 105mm to name a few. Similarly with the Nikon range. I have only tried a few Canon FL mount SLR lenses but have not been disappointed. And of course the Leica, early Summicron 50, the Summitar 50, the Summaron 35 and so on are great lenses and if anything the early Canon rangefinder lenses of similar spec are even better taken as a group.
Modern computerised design and manufacturing proceesses together with modern materials such as polycarbonate plastics have allowed the design and construction of some very flexible and competent zooms at good prcies. Some are almost unbelievably good. But in my opinion only a few manage to match let alone exceed the results of the very best of the old prime lenses. In this case I am not measuring "results" by sharpness alone. Lenses need to have resulving power, but as ifs often remarked upon and debated in this forum other characteristics like Bokeh, colour rendition and so forth also go a long way to producing lovely images.
Having said that when I go away on holidays these days it is almost always my Nikon D70s and a couple of AF zooms that I carry - not a bag full of old lenses. And I am happy enough with the results.
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
fidget said:
That is true, and it isn't true. What I miss in this discussion is a clarification what is "Performance" and the differentiations depending on the chosen fstop and focal length.
"Performance" does not mean only footprint and OOF details, ist also means distortion, resolution fro edge to edge,, contrast, flare and lightfall in the corners. Old and new glass differs essentially at some points.
So about which performance do we speak, about which focal length and which apertures ?
Put a modern pro zoom on 50mm and stop it down on f8 and it could be you cannot keep it from any high class prime, watchin' the prints later.
bertram
oftheherd
Veteran
Maybe someone else did, but PeterM1 is the first I saw who mentioned the role of computers in modern lens design. That can't be over looked. Also some of the glass that can now be used.
But I am with others that some of the older lenses with their particular "character" give results that I tend to prefer. And how far back are we going to go? SLR glass from the 70's was often prepared with the aid of computers. I sometimes think they give the best combination of new design and old character.
But I am with others that some of the older lenses with their particular "character" give results that I tend to prefer. And how far back are we going to go? SLR glass from the 70's was often prepared with the aid of computers. I sometimes think they give the best combination of new design and old character.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
pizzahut88 said:
Have you read at least once my post!!!!! :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
I say the same thing as you!!!!!Besides I'm one of those who praise the qualities of "old" lenses, like Summitar or Elmar uncoated!
I'M TALKING NONSENSE THEN????
Originally Posted by Marc-A.
Hey Kent
What's perfection? I don't understand your suggestion: "if you want perfection, go for a modern lens". A picture without character isn't perfect, a lens that cannot give character isn't perfect, a portrait which so sharp that we can see micro-spots on the skin, isn't perfect ... etc.
Fidget, if you want perfection, take the lens which gives you the pictures you have in mind. If you want super-sharpness and super-contrast, go for a modern lens; sharpness is fun, but it's one of the less important feature of a good picture. Masters of photography haven't ever been obsessed by sharpness - see all those fuzzy, blurry portraits by HCB; even Salgado published fuzzy pictures (the portrait on the cover of Serra Pelada for instance).
If you want to make photography, take the lens that suits your vision. Then you'll get perfection.
like2fiddle
Curious
It's a good thing we don't all like the same thing. Photography results are subjective. What I like some one else will not. Imagine if we all agreed on one "perfect" lens - what a disaster that would be.
Old glass, new glass - it's a personal choice, it's whatever the photographer wants/likes that matters. As Marc alluded to, and to put a twist on an old phrase, "perfection is in the eye of the beholder"
Old glass, new glass - it's a personal choice, it's whatever the photographer wants/likes that matters. As Marc alluded to, and to put a twist on an old phrase, "perfection is in the eye of the beholder"
Finder
Veteran
With any objective measurement within the parameters of the design, modern lenses are better. As far as subjectives preferences, no answer can be given.
But how important is the lens? The scene conditions, exposure, focus, media, processing, output media, and skill of the folks involved in the process are going to impact that image. Even objective measurements of the optics do not give absolute qualifications of performance unless you place within the imaging system it belongs.
But how important is the lens? The scene conditions, exposure, focus, media, processing, output media, and skill of the folks involved in the process are going to impact that image. Even objective measurements of the optics do not give absolute qualifications of performance unless you place within the imaging system it belongs.