Unrealistic expectations and perceptions

[Keith]

I have no problem at all with anyone who says that they love their FSU lenses, Canon f/1.2, etc. But I can't take them seriously if they tell me that these same lenses are in the same league for contrast and sharpness as the best modern lenses.

I think the lens that brought your point home to me is my Canon 1.2 ... I truly love the lens and use it whenever I can. It took a while but I now know it's limitations and don't feel disappointed when I go beyond them and get less than satisfactory results. For what I want it for it's teriffic ... that said I would have a Noctilux in a heartbeat because I see that it can do what the Canon does easily and do it without reacting the way the Canon does in certain unfavourable conditions.

Sadly I'm not about to spend five to six grand on a lens but if ever I do ... I'm sure I won't be disappointed!

 

[Peter Klein]

For me, old lenses are *fun*. Many 50s are inexpensive. I also like the way some of them draw. So why not play?

I bought a Jupiter-8 for $30 recently. The reason why I bought this one is because the seller had sample pictures showing that it focused properly on an Leica M. I've met many that didn't, so I figured, now's my chance to win at Russian Roulette. So for $30 I can now have Sonnar looking pictures when the mood strikes me.

Now, objectively speaking, the "best" lens I own is the 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. But with that sharpness and contrast perfection comes a price: a kind of brittleness to the image. And sometimes a harsher out-of-focus rendition. For available light at f/1.4 and f/2, paying that price is worth it in terms of the detail you get. But once there's a bit more light and you close down a stop or two, many lenses give enough detail. At that point, I often want something a little rounder, a little smoother than the more modern lenses give.

This is why I love the 50/2 Dual-Range Summicron so much. It has a compromise between sharpness and contrast that I find very pleasing. There's a slight bleed of bright highlights that I find attractive. It's a great "sunny day lens," as Sean Reid would put it. And for people pictures, a Sonnar type lens may be just what the doctor ordered.

All this may be cultural and age-related. I grew up on pictures taken with the classic-era lenses. So perhaps I'm drawn to that look simply because it reminds me of pictures that I first appreciated as a teenager.

Photography is not only about laboratory-grade reproduction of the scene in front of you. It's also about interpreting that scene to evoke emotion. Lens choice is another interpretive tool. Sometimes old lenses are old junk. But sometimes they're old wine.

--Peter

 

[Dan States]

Roger, I think it's natural that our expectations are indexed to price, reputation and in general the amount of sacrifice needed to obtain the object in question.

But as we know, PRICE is not the only determination of expectations. The Noctilux would be the most hated lens in the universe if we only judged it by the price or the brand name. People are much more willing to accept certain compromises if they are clearly indicated up front, before laying down their money (see the Leica IR mess as an example). If I tell you that the Noctilux is big, hard to focus and fuzzy at full aperture but unmatched in it's capabilities you will be more than happy with the results. If you believe it should be as good at F1 as a Summicron at F4 you are in for a sad awakening.

I was one of the first to buy a C-Sonnar and as such the news about focus shift was not out in the market. My expectations were not met because I had not been "primed" about the compromises inherent in the lens. Today most users have lots of information about this lens and make their purchase with open eyes. They will have a much higher rate of satisfaction.

Best wishes
Dan

 

[Roger Hicks]

If I tell you that the Noctilux is big, hard to focus and fuzzy at full aperture but unmatched in it's capabilities you will be more than happy with the results. If you believe it should be as good at F1 as a Summicron at F4 you are in for a sad awakening.

Dear Dan,

Absolutely. But it still seems to me that a lot of people do overstate both the good and the bad -- or carefully tailor their definitions of 'good' and 'bad' to exclude anything objectively measurable, above all MTF curves (and sometimes focus shift).

I knew about the focus shift on the Sonnar from the start. It's inherent in the design; I had discussed it with Zeiss; and I was one of the first to suggest an f/1.5 rangefinder optimization. I firmly believe that while a few people -- yourself included, presumably -- did have trouble with the Sonnar, a lot more would never have noticed if it had not been for the internet hullabaloo, or if they had used it for real photography instead of for test targets.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ben Z]

Collapsible Summicrons, according one one recent thread, are rarely much good any more (haze, cleaning marks).

Maybe I'm lucky but mine is almost perfect, as is my chrome M3-era rigid. I also have a modern ("tabbed" variety) Summicron, and quite frankly I don't see a world of difference between them in practical use. Since I got a Summilux (not the ASPH either) I have rarely touched any of the Summicrons. The one more f-stop makes a much more compelling reason for me than the optical differences between Summicrons.

According to others, many FSU lenses (copies of pre-World War Two Zeiss designs) are just as good as their modern counterparts.

The only thing I've noticed with FSU lenses is the huge sample variation, which makes it impossible for me to draw any generalizations concerning them.

 

[dreamsandart]

This is an interesting thread. For years I wondered what a well regarded classic signature lens would preform like with modern coatings. I had read at sometime somewhere that Henri Cartier-Bresson had his dependable collapsable Summicron re-worked at the Leitz factory sometime in the 60s and they had put modern coatings on it. I imagine that the contrast was increased. I know from talking to Leica representatives in the early 70s that Leica lens design had incorporated the concept of higher contrast. Its one of the reason they tried to reduce the number of elements like in the '69' 50 Summicron (from 7 to 6) and second version of the 35 Summicron (from 8 to 6).

No doubt lens designs have modernized to increase contrast and sharpness, flatten field and correct distortion. Older lenses may be sharp enough for most photographers use, but there is a difference. My thought is that the modern lens coatings have had more effect than anything else. A good example are the 2 new Nikkor lenses that came with the limited edition Nikon S3/SP. Both are 50s classic with modern coatings, although the originals were great lenses the new lenses are as good as any modern lens out there.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Were the Nikkors identical? I'm not arguing; I just half-recalled that they used different glasses or were recomputed or both. A recomputation may involve quite modest changes to curves, so the optical section looks the same, but still effect a worthwhile change to sharpness, etc.

Also -- this does not refer to Nikkors specifically -- some glasses that were in use in the 50s are no longer available and the lenses had to be recomputed to use the slightly different formulae. There have been some significant improvements in glasses too, notably anomalous dispersion glasses.

As an aside on coating, I have been told (though I have not verified it) that the first commercially available lens to be multicoated was the original 35/1.4 Summilux in 1956 or so (date from memory) though Zeiss first used multicoating in 1943 or thereabouts.

When an old lens is coated or recoated, my understanding is that it is normally single-coated, and that it can only be multi-coated if the original multi-coating sequence is known or if later versions of the identical lens were multi-coated.

Finally, no matter how good an old Leica or Zeiss lens was, it is generally a safe bet that a newer lens or recomputation is an improvement in an objective sense (no pun intended), as neither company recomputes in order to save money, but rather, to improve sharpness, contrast, field flatness, illumination, etc. Whether you like the new look or not is, of course, another matter.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[dreamsandart]

Hi Roger,

I have not seen any technical data on the new Nikkors. My thought is that like the new cameras Nikon tried to produce the lenses as close as a modern camera company could to the originals, but of course glass changes and I know for a fact that the original 35/1.8 had the lanthium glass which is no longer available so a substitute glass was used at least for that element. Also, although they used modern lens coatings, the cements also were probably 'modernized'. Cements themselves can have properties like lens coatings.

As for the idea that an older lens with single coatings can not be multi-coatinged (HCB's Summicron may have been re-muiti-caoted or just had 'better' single coated applied, I don't know), I'm not sure this is universally applicable. The collapsable Summicron was put together with very close tolerances, especially with its 'air lens'. But I believe the 38/4.5 Ziess Biogon when it went from the single coating to the *T* multi-coating was not changed (correct me of I'm wrong).

Lenses even if the crude lens layout diagrams look the same do get 'tweaked'. The Leitz 35/1.4 looks the same in drawings from the early chrome version to the mid 60s newer black mount, but Leitz Midland did make a slight adjustment that increased performance.

Back to Nikon... The on-line overview of the making of the new SP talks about the finder and how hard it was to duplicate. Modern manufacturing techniques and materials made the new finder flare a bit and so an adjustment in one of the elements was needed by shaving a couple thousands of a mm off. In the end it was maybe slightly better preforming than the original. In the new lenses a similar adjustment may have been needed. But having used both the original lens and the new multi-coated versions side by side for a roll I can say the original is basically as good with a very slight increase of contrast with the new lens, the main difference is in flare control - the new lens is just amazing is this regards. Things do improve is my take, even with a good old lens.

I think what can be said is that lens manufacture's don't look back. If a new lens is introduced its been upgraded to be better. Even if the older lens is very good and totally acceptable for our standards and use, a newer lens (same manufacturer and speed lens) will out perform it technically.

Now how its 'put together' - functions like focus feel and in use - is another whole ball game ( I still like the old Leitz lenses in this regards ).

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . As for the idea that an older lens with single coatings can not be multi-coated . . .

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. ANY lens can be multi-coated, but as I understand it (from Balham Optical) you need to match the coatings closely to the glass, which means that aftermarket recoating by third parties is very unlikely indeed to be multi-

A manufacturer will of course know what the glass is, and can match the coating to it, BUT they will need to work out the coating sequence, which they are likely to do (or rather, to have done) only if later but otherwise identical versions of the same lens have been multicoated, e.g. (as you say) the Biogon.

Also -- again, I don't know, but it looks likely from what I have seen of coating plants -- I doubt it would be economically feasible to multi-coat a single glass or group instead of a batch. So, for example, multicoating repolished Summars might well be feasible but they would need to work out a multicoating sequence and to have enough repolished Summars to make it worth while. As I say, this is conjecture, but in my defence I'd add that it's informed conjecture.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Dan States]

Hi Roger,

I have not seen any technical data on the new Nikkors. My thought is that like the new cameras Nikon tried to produce the lenses as close as a modern camera company could to the originals, but of course glass changes and I know for a fact that the original 35/1.8 had the lanthium glass which is no longer available so a substitute glass was used at least for that element. Also, although they used modern lens coatings, the cements also were probably 'modernized'. Cements themselves can have properties like lens coatings.

As for the idea that an older lens with single coatings can not be multi-coatinged (HCB's Summicron may have been re-muiti-caoted or just had 'better' single coated applied, I don't know), I'm not sure this is universally applicable. The collapsable Summicron was put together with very close tolerances, especially with its 'air lens'. But I believe the 38/4.5 Ziess Biogon when it went from the single coating to the *T* multi-coating was not changed (correct me of I'm wrong).

Lenses even if the crude lens layout diagrams look the same do get 'tweaked'. The Leitz 35/1.4 looks the same in drawings from the early chrome version to the mid 60s newer black mount, but Leitz Midland did make a slight adjustment that increased performance.

Back to Nikon... The on-line overview of the making of the new SP talks about the finder and how hard it was to duplicate. Modern manufacturing techniques and materials made the new finder flare a bit and so an adjustment in one of the elements was needed by shaving a couple thousands of a mm off. In the end it was maybe slightly better preforming than the original. In the new lenses a similar adjustment may have been needed. But having used both the original lens and the new multi-coated versions side by side for a roll I can say the original is basically as good with a very slight increase of contrast with the new lens, the main difference is in flare control - the new lens is just amazing is this regards. Things do improve is my take, even with a good old lens.

I think what can be said is that lens manufacture's don't look back. If a new lens is introduced its been upgraded to be better. Even if the older lens is very good and totally acceptable for our standards and use, a newer lens (same manufacturer and speed lens) will out perform it technically.

Now how its 'put together' - functions like focus feel and in use - is another whole ball game ( I still like the old Leitz lenses in this regards ).

In case anyone has not seen this at the Nikon site:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n03_e.htm

My apologies if this is redundant redundancy.