"Modern" lens designs?

R

Rafael

Mandlerian
Local time
7:30 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
1,280
I am looking for some clarification of the expression "modern lens design," a term that seems to get used quite loosely. Obviously, there is no precise date that we can use to distinguish "modern" from "pre-modern" (?) lens designs. For example, the 50mm pre-asph Summilux (E43) was in production from 1966-1995 and the optical formula remained the same for the E46 version. As it was introduced in '66, I gather that we would not consider the 50mm pre-asph Summilux to be a modern lens design (eventhough that optical formula remained in production well into the period of "modern lens designs").

As I understand the term, "modern lens design" primarily denotes improved glass and lens coatings with corresponding increased flare resistance and increased contrast (both macro and micro?). But where do we draw the line between "modern" and "pre-modern" designs?

I ask because I am currently searching for the proper vocabulary to describe what I feel is lacking from my current set of 50mm lenses. I have read through many of the threads comparing different lens designs. And I remain somewhat confused by the different uses of this term "modern."
 
Last edited:
That's a really taxing question, Marc as there have been so many advances in lens design. Should we see the modern era as beginning when the crown glasses were introduced allowing much better correction? Or maybe with the introduction of computerised ray tracing? Maybe some would say it's the introduction of coated surfaces or even aspherical surfaces. I have no answer for this, but you've got me thinking.
 
To me "modern lens design" is loosely a set of computer-aided, SLR-compatible lens designs making use of modern glass catalogs. In normal to short tele range of primes it is almost exclusively Planar derivations. Hence in my book Helios-103 1.8/53, Canon EF 50/1.4, Summilux 50/1.4 in all variations are modern.

But things like Sonnar 1.5/50, Bush-Perscheid, classic Heliar (even in modern Cosina reincarnation), Nikkor 50/1.1 are not. Those were often designed by a sole engineer burning midnight oil in front of drawings, abacus and logarithmic scale, and posess more distinctive character than products of CADs and huge collectives.
 
I use the term to refer to highly corrected lenses which take advantage of aspherical elements, and/or very high refractive index glass.
 
Yes, I agree — Those lenses that were primarily authored by one person using hand-traced rays and a limited catalogue of available glass are not modern . . . but often very good and interesting. And, without the necessity of being lightly built to reduce the mass for AF they were mechanically precise and substantial and satisfying to operate (usually).
 
I would say the change was when the shorter lenses left the double-gauss design and became more retrofocus. I agree, it is a woolly distinction. But there is nothing modern about asphericals and apochromatic correction. Leica has been using those for microscope lenses sincs long before WWII.
 
Last edited:
markinlondon said:
Or maybe with the introduction of computerised ray tracing?
Click to expand...
In my notion, this is the dividing line.. where Fingerspitzengefuhl and tinkering has been replaced by automated design optimisation..
 
i agree, this is quite "fuzzy" since it refers to the definition of the term "modern". sometimes i get the idea, "modern" should be replaced with "fashionable" - but just for consideration. :)

finally, i believe there are several parts that play their role:

- "modern" glass (whatever is modern here - some glass will always be modern, and other once modern is avoided nowadays, just think of leaded or lanthanium glass)

- "modern" coating (most modern is obviously nano particle coating)

- "modern" computing and optimizing using computers (btw, these computer aided methods cannot replace "fingerspitzengefühl", but they help a lot to cover the vast amount of possibilities)

- affordable production of asperical surfaces (but not necessarily used everywhere)

from this point of view, the current zeiss ZM planar 50 mm as well as the ZM biogon and the c-sonnar must be considered modern, though they heavily refer to "classical" design.


so, it just depends on your idea of what is "modern".

:)
thank you for the interesting discussion.
sebastel
 
Last edited:
pvdhaar said:
In my notion, this is the dividing line.. where Fingerspitzengefuhl and tinkering has been replaced by automated design optimisation..
Click to expand...

Would that definition not make the CV lenses and the Elmar 50/2.8new "modern"lenses, which although more than excellent, they definitely are not.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Would that not make the CV lenses and the Elmar 50/2.8new "modern"lenses, which although more than excellent, they definitely are not.
Click to expand...

A Tessar clone, modern? Although in some worlds 1905 would fall perfectly into the "modern" period.

added :)
 
Last edited:
markinlondon said:
A Tessar clone, modern? Although in some worlds 1905 would fall perfectly into the "modern" period.

added :)
Click to expand...
Which is exactly, Mark , why I would tend to define by basic design.
 
Planar was desinged in 1896. Does that make 50 'lux non-modern?
 
Well, so is 2.8 Tessar compared to original f/6.3. The line between modern and old is really blurry, and am not even sure theres just one line :)
 
I think a modern lens has clinical sharpess, medium-high contrast, sharp and accurate color rendition, excellent flare control and tamed out-of-focus characteristics. It has no "quirks" or surprises. At its worst, it has the bland perfection of a fashion model, lacking individuality; at its best, its excellence makes its physical presence all but invisible to the viewer, allowing the photographer to concentrate on the image itself, not the limitations or personality of the lens.
 
jaapv said:
Which is exactly, Mark , why I would tend to define by basic design.
Click to expand...

As indeed you should, Jaap. and yet the "new" Elmar is considered a modern design and Tessar type lenses are still quite common. Maybe the "modern" aspect of lens design is one of refinement via the ability to compute more complex ray patterns including the use of aspherical surfaces thanks to our little electronic pals. Maybe we should instead categorise lenses as those designed with or without the help of computers rather than "classical" and "modern".
 
VinceC said:
I think a modern lens has clinical sharpess, medium-high contrast, sharp and accurate color rendition, excellent flare control and tamed out-of-focus characteristics. It has no "quirks" or surprises. At its worst, it has the bland perfection of a fashion model, lacking individuality; at its best, its excellence makes its physical presence all but invisible to the viewer, allowing the photographer to concentrate on the image itself, not the limitations or personality of the lens.
Click to expand...
This actually make a good "operational definition" so to say. Not much about design per se, but mostly rules out old designs.
 
Rafael said:
I am looking for some clarification of the expression "modern lens design," a term that seems to get used quite loosely. Obviously, there is no precise date that we can use to distinguish "modern" from "pre-modern" (?) lens designs. For example, the 50mm pre-asph Summilux (E43) was in production from 1966-1995 and the optical formula remained the same for the E46 version. As it was introduced in '66, I gather that we would not consider the 50mm pre-asph Summilux to be a modern lens design (eventhough that optical formula remained in production well into the period of "modern lens designs").
Click to expand...

For me it's coating and the use of aspherical elements, Marc.

Roland.

PS: I was thinking about this again on my commute: sometimes, everything older than me is "classic" and everything younger "modern". You might be too young to understand :)
 
Last edited:
One milestone was the availability of 'hill climb' software to ray trace a design and alter it and ray trace and alter it to try and optimise over given rules, the rules inclide production tolerances, shallow curves, preferred glass types, etc. This beats using beads, log tables or hand cranked adding machine.

For example I dont know if the (Leitz) Mandler cron of '79 was produced from a hill climb but it shows radical thinking - where the double Gauss/Planar/Cooke speed pancro interior doublets deep curves are simplified to flat surfaces. Supposedly the FSU designers copied it for their Helios series.

But who is interested in optical design, other then fondlers, groupies, and E Putsy?

Noel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom