Old glass vs modern designed glass

Surely if we're comparing a shot captured to film to one by a digital P&S, the digital file will have received some in camera processing to "enhance" it even before it gets to the print stage. It's the old apples and oranges debate again. I'm constantly impressed with the results from my Fuji F11 but I prefer what I get from my Leica glass.

Roger, if we all agreed on the "perfect" lens, it would certainly be a disaster for lens designers and manufacturers 😀
Life would also be a lot less interesting on this forum and others.
 
markinlondon said:
Roger, if we all agreed on the "perfect" lens, it would certainly be a disaster for lens designers and manufacturers 😀
Life would also be a lot less interesting on this forum and others.
Click to expand...

Mark, you're absolutely right, but the biggest problem would be that you all would be after my Summitar!😉
 
Marc-A. said:
Fidget, if you want perfection, take the lens which gives you the pictures you have in mind.
Click to expand...

That is true. But it is always an unwelcome truth. Absolute values are more popular , they seem to guarantee something in the sense that you can't go wrong with it and can feel save. Relativising the "perfect lens" to the intended result gives all responsability back to you and your vision. That does not make aybody feel save.😀
Tho everybody would agree that the golden bullet does not exist people don't stop to search for it. Not the bullet but thi strange search is magic.
Why do people rather trust in a gadget then in their own ability to judge the result which it produces ????:bang:

bertram
 
Bertram2 said:
That is true. But it is always an unwelcome truth. Absolute values are more popular , they seem to guarantee something in the sense that you can't go wrong with it and can feel save. Relativising the "perfect lens" to the intended result gives all responsability back to you and your vision. That does not make aybody feel save.😀
Tho everybody would agree that the golden bullet does not exist people don't stop to search for it. Not the bullet but thi strange search is magic.
Why do people rather trust in a gadget then in their own ability to judge the result which it produces ????:bang:

bertram
Click to expand...


I really and truly miss this guy. You have to listen carefully to what he says to get his message, but he's one of the few sane voices around.
 
jan normandale said:
I really and truly miss this guy. You have to listen carefully to what he says to get his message, but he's one of the few sane voices around.
Click to expand...

Way too much honour, Jan !😱 I am just an old anarcho fart in (bourgeois) disguise who finally got rid of all those silly and misleading urban legends of photography. At least one little balance for the drag to get older and older. Older now than I thought I could ever grow when Jimi and Janis died 😉

Best regards,

Bertram
 
Hi there

Hi there

Marc-A. 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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agreed with you. 😀

Was using that self-questioning style I just learnt at philosphy class.
It's driving me nuts at school.

What's bald and not bald?
What is old, how old is old . . . etc.
😀
and you guessed it the topic of the lesson was 'We are all talking non-sense'.
not that you were . . .

Cheers, Manfred
 
Dave

You need to use slow film, f/5.6 or smaller and a tripod to get the best out of an old lens. The lens may have a good central definition but will fall off into the corners. When you can see this it is the lens.

A modern lens will use a wider selection of higher refractive/different dispersive glass, a computer programme to optimise the design and anti reflection to make a four group (or more) design practical it will be cheap to produce on robot machines. It will have better open aperature and off axis performance, the glass has higher refractive index, the curves are gently, the abberation is from the sperical curves.

Leitz use aspheric surfaces to attempt to get more performance for less cost.

The dig camera sensor pattern will degrade the performance of the lens, but so will camera shake, fast film or flare. You need good technique to see a large improvement over the dig camera, hence the Rd1 and M8.

35mm was popular for the convenience, the depth of focus, the speed of handling, not for the six foot wide enlargments. The E6 films have buried the Kchrome for the convenience, not quality. If you have a 5x4 for the Hindenburg landing you only get a few real sharp shots with your six double dark slides.

Think of betamax VCRs.

Noel
 
Thanks for the input guys.
I'm going to put the vintage gear on the shelf for a while and have a proper go with my Nokton. That should help me feel better 🙂

Dave
 
Sorry that I haven't answered earlier. I've been on a holiday. 🙂

With "perfection" I mean (almost) perfect correction of optical mistakes, just the way Magus explained it.
This you wil find in modern lenses, sometimes even to a sterile extend.

Magus also mentioned the Nikkor-O 35 (and funny he did that). I have got a Nikkor-O 2.0/35 and I love to use it. Flares ("flare master") can easily prevented with a hood (that's at least my experience, I use the lens at my EOS 350D) and the pictures are IMHO amazing. Colour rendition, contrast all very typical and exactly the way I like it. That's why I talk about the "character" of an old glass.

I also like the "personalities" of my MIR-1B, my Nikkor-N.C 2.8/24, my Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135, my SMC Pentax-M 1.7/50, my Tomioka 1.4/55, my Jupiters 9 and 21M or my Jupiter-12 and my Industar-61 at my FED-3b and many others.
I have also got a Pentacon 1.8/50 which many photographers like a lot. This lens does not amaze me, although it is a good lens with any doubt.

When I use a modern lens, e.g. Canon's L-series, I get everything I could ever need from a lens: great correction, extreme sharpness etc. but in way these pictures are replaceable, you know what I mean? That's perfect for a pro who needs to rely on his results, but I rather try to understand the characteristics of an old lens and sometime like it, sometimes not. Call it a "hobby".

That's why I wrote that juxtaposition above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom