Lenses with the fewest number of elements?

[Redseele]

Hi all,

I've been doing some reading about microcontrast and 3D pop lately (I know it's a controversial subject, so I don't intend to start a flaming war). One of the things claimed was that the least amount of elements in a lens usually leads to more microcontrast and real-life likeness and pop, albeit with less corrections.

From my own experience, from every single lens I have tried over the past years, Leica and Zeiss lenses always had an edge over everyone else's (Nikon, Canon, Zuiko, etc.) and older lenses (at least amongst those I have tried) tend to have the most microcontrast. I have seen this the most in a few lenses I have owned: a Summaron 35mm 3.5, the Summicron 50mm 1st version Collapsible, but also modern Zeiss glass and old Sonnars. I know that all of these have much fewer elements than, say, modern SLR lenses (some of which, particularly zooms, have up to 20 elements).

So I was wondering, what are the very simplest designed lenses? As I said, I have no intention to start a flaming war about optics theory, but I really am wondering if for my style of photography there might be some gems I have never heard about.

 

[oftheherd]

Meniscus?

(10 words)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Less glass more goodies? You must try Brownie with meniscus lens then. 🙂
I'm on my second Canadian one.

I can't find micro-contrast in many modern lenses which I used to have on DSLRs and some common ones I have tried on digital M. But modern Zeiss 50 1.4 ZE lens I' used on Canon 5D was outstanding for 3D and some nice micro-contrast was present under good light at f5.6-f8. It only and totally sucked at f1.4 🙂.

On Leica, RF side, I'm finding what for me the micro-contrast is more visible on bw film than on digital sensors. I liked Elmar-M 50 2.8 for it. It was making prints not flat at all. But to me the king of micro-contrast is my Summarit-M 35 2.5.

 

[ForestCap]

Human eyeball has 1 lens element.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Human eyeball has 1 lens element.

And the image requires considerable post processing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[B-9]

The least amount of lens elements is easy,

Pinhole... no optics at all!

Can't beat 0

 

[Roger Hicks]

Several slow, long focus Leica lenses consist only of cemented doublets. It's when you want a wider angle or a faster lens that you need more glasses.

In the 1930s the choice in standard lenses was stark: lower resolution with higher contrast (Zeiss) or lower contrast and higher resolution (Leitz).

To quote a well-known politician, "Who knew it was so difficult?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[drew.saunders]

I have one of these modern Wollaston Meniscus single element lenses: http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Lenses.html

It's a soft focus lens, and is somewhat challenging to focus, plus I have to use an old dark slide as the "shutter" and hope I guess the exposure correctly (I have a variable ND filter for it as well). It uses waterhouse stops, whole stops only (but I could probably do the math and make an f/6.8 if I wanted to)

Here's the same subject at f/4 and f/8:

02-09-14-3 by Drew Saunders, on Flickr

02-09-14-4 by Drew Saunders, on Flickr

I also have an Imagon (2 elements) with a shutter that's easier to use, but still difficult to focus.

 

[gerikson]

Cooke triplet should be the simplest corrected lens.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cooke triplet should be the simplest corrected lens.

Not really. Doublets should be more corrected than meniscus lenses. But as I said before, to quote a well-known politician, "Who knew it was so difficult?"

Simplistic explanations of complex phenomena will rarely satisfy those who even begin to understand the subject. But frighteningly many people don't even begin to understand the subject.

Cheers,

R.

 

[narsuitus]

Not even close to the lowest number of elements but Tessar lenses consist of four elements in three groups.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not even close to the lowest number of elements but Tessar lenses consist of four elements in three groups.

Being Cooke triplets with one group consisting of a cemented doublet. Tessars are stunning at f/6.3; often good at f/4.5; usually not too bad at f/3.5; and rarely any good at all at f/2.8 (or worse, faster).

As I said earlier, It's when you want a wider angle or a faster lens that you need more glasses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Merlijn53]

The Novoflex 400 and 600mm lenses have 3 lenses.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Nokton48]

The Rodenstock Imagon is a favorite of mine, I have a complete set in shutter and barrel.

A cemented doublet - two elements in one group.

I sold my short Imagons (120 & 150) to my good friend "Mr. Pentacon Six".
His complete report on my custom made lenses is here:

https://www.pentaconsix.com/imagon.htm

 

[Mackinaw]

Some early Canon SLR telephotos (R600mm and R800mm, for the Canonflex) had only two elements.

Jim B.

 

[Ronald M]

Less glass more goodies? You must try Brownie with meniscus lens then. 🙂
I'm on my second Canadian one.

I can't find micro-contrast in many modern lenses which I used to have on DSLRs and some common ones I have tried on digital M. But modern Zeiss 50 1.4 ZE lens I' used on Canon 5D was outstanding for 3D and some nice micro-contrast was present under good light at f5.6-f8. It only and totally sucked at f1.4 🙂.

On Leica, RF side, I'm finding what for me the micro-contrast is more visible on bw film than on digital sensors. I liked Elmar-M 50 2.8 for it. It was making prints not flat at all. But to me the king of micro-contrast is my Summarit-M 35 2.5.

Elmar M for sure. Also 50 APO

 

[View Range]

The cemented doublets are achromats. This design, typically with one element flint glass and one element crown glass, predates photography. Achromats were invented for telescopes. Many manufactures of long lenses used achromats. True telephotos eventually replaced achromats. Zeiss, Leica, Novoflex, Kilfitt, Astro-Berlin, Tewe, Canon, etc, etc all used the classic achromat design.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . True telephotos eventually replaced achromats. . . . .

Not completely, and even then, only for convenience (shorter lens barrels), not for image quality.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mdarnton]

For what it's worth, there's one 90mm Elmar version with three elements.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/170917-walter-mandler-90mm-elmar-triplet/

That might be the Leica record for anything shorter than 400mm or so.

 

[jcb4718]

Here is my take on micro contrast. Your subject is a series of black and white strips gradually decreasing in width. The image is likewise a series of strips until the lens can't resolve them and that part of the image is grey (i.e. the average of black and white). Good micro contrast lenses preserve the 'blackness' and 'whiteness' of the strips until they can no longer resolve, but the transition is quick. Lenses with poor micro contrast resolve the lines but as 'dark grey' and 'light grey'. They might have much greater resolution (ability to distinguish strips) but the overall impact is not as punchy as a lens with less resolution that resolves 'black' and 'white' until it can no longer resolve. It's a subtle effect to do with how the lens aberrations effect the black and white strips. If the aberrations allow the lens to resolve (i.e. you can see the strips) while also allowing some light to spread out round the strips, the lens will have good resolution and poor micro contrast. This is completely different from macro contrast (or flare) which is light bouncing off glass-air interfaces and getting all over the place: this light effects all the strips, even the widest strips, equally. The Sonnars had good flare resistance because the number of glass air interfaces was minimised and good micro contrast because the 7 elements allowed a high degree of correction. I think to get good micro contrast you need a well corrected lens.