NickTrop
Veteran
... what makes a lens "classic", "special" etc? I'm specifically referring to primes and I'm also specifically referring to optics. Obviously, there is variance in build quality as it pertains to the mechanics and exterior and quality control. But all things being equal, assuming a good sample, this doesn't affect image quality. Just being honest, I see many a fine picture posted here over they years. Often the lens make/focal length/widest ap is posted along with the picture. I almost never see one where a particular lens, say a Leica "whatever" (ain't bashing -- just a point of reference) is obviously better than a picture taken with a prime that's bolted on some late-60's fixed lens rangefinder (or whatever...)
Since primes seem to use basically the same optical formulations -- what is it? Is it the glass? If so, what is it about that particular glass that makes it special? Is it the coating? Is it some other special secret sauce?
I have have heard raves about Rokkors, Zuikos, Summi---s etc., etc., etc... But in all the pics I've ever seen, the standouts have more to do with lighting and composition. Hell, I can't even see differences between Sonnars and Planars.
So. With primes that typically share the same optical formula, what distinguishes them? No wishy-washy answers here. Please be as technical and nerdy as you can be.
Since primes seem to use basically the same optical formulations -- what is it? Is it the glass? If so, what is it about that particular glass that makes it special? Is it the coating? Is it some other special secret sauce?
I have have heard raves about Rokkors, Zuikos, Summi---s etc., etc., etc... But in all the pics I've ever seen, the standouts have more to do with lighting and composition. Hell, I can't even see differences between Sonnars and Planars.
So. With primes that typically share the same optical formula, what distinguishes them? No wishy-washy answers here. Please be as technical and nerdy as you can be.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
It's like this -
Soft lenses are "Classic" (or have that "Leica glow");
Lenses sharp to the edge wide-open are "Modern";
Lenses with pleasant bukeh are "Special";
High-contrast lenses are "Bold" or "Dynamic";
Low-contrast lenses are "Cheap" (or old and full of fungus).
And that about sums it up. ...
Also keep in mind that most of this is highly subjective and will very likely change depending on who you're talking to or about.
peterm1
Veteran
I have always understood that the primary factor are the residual aberrations present in many older lenses. Modern lenses are corrected up the wazoo using computers to design them and the most modern technologies and materials to make them. As a result they are sharp across the frame, contrasty, produce highly colored images, flare less due to modern coatings etc. But that makes them in the eyes of many people who are looking for an artistic rather than a technical rendering, a little boring and less able to produce those artistic images - they do not "interpret" the image. They just reproduce it. Great for use in a studio for making images of products to go on a brochure for example. But not so good at the other stuff.
Sometimes we overstate this stuff but the way I think of it is that different lenses produce a different "look" from the same basic scene. So I think of my lenses as being like an artist's brushes. Which one I pick up on the day, depends on what I am trying to achieve. I sometimes read reviews of lenses and in the "against" or "con" column they will list comments like "Sharp in the centre but edges tend to be soft" or "Slight flare when image is backlit" or "Lowered contrast when shot wide open". And I will think - but that is both natural and not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it's what I want most times. Except when I am making those pesky images to go on sales brochures of products. (Which I never do).
Sometimes we overstate this stuff but the way I think of it is that different lenses produce a different "look" from the same basic scene. So I think of my lenses as being like an artist's brushes. Which one I pick up on the day, depends on what I am trying to achieve. I sometimes read reviews of lenses and in the "against" or "con" column they will list comments like "Sharp in the centre but edges tend to be soft" or "Slight flare when image is backlit" or "Lowered contrast when shot wide open". And I will think - but that is both natural and not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it's what I want most times. Except when I am making those pesky images to go on sales brochures of products. (Which I never do).
RichC
Well-known
For me, "classic" means high resolution but low contrast, typical of many 1960s and 1970s lenses, designed by crafts people and experience rather than by computers. And also before Japanese cameras wholly took over from European ones: the Japanese chased optical perfection far harder than Europeans of that time, so their lenses tended towards high resolution and high contrast.
The Japanese aesthetic became the norm once they dominated the camera industry, and chasing technical perfection in optics has become an obsession - witness the completely over the top lenses currently being released. Next year they'll be the size of buckets and be down to f/0.1!
I'm well aware that the low contrast I mention is a fault - an optical aberration - but making lens aberrations a positive rather than a negative was the skill of those old designers with slide rules! Rather than making a photograph ugly, these designers used aberrations to create emotion and character through subtle interplay between sharpness, tonality and contrast; today's lenses are slaves to technology and numbers, and are coldly clinical with harsh, dark shadows and bright highlights, and a flatter, compressed appearance so subjects can seem less three dimensional than older lenses.
An example of the kind of lens I prefer is the 55mm Micro-nikkor AI or the 1960s 35mm Summilux stopped down (it's a bit pants wide open unless you want a very glowy flarey image with lots of coma!)
The Japanese aesthetic became the norm once they dominated the camera industry, and chasing technical perfection in optics has become an obsession - witness the completely over the top lenses currently being released. Next year they'll be the size of buckets and be down to f/0.1!
I'm well aware that the low contrast I mention is a fault - an optical aberration - but making lens aberrations a positive rather than a negative was the skill of those old designers with slide rules! Rather than making a photograph ugly, these designers used aberrations to create emotion and character through subtle interplay between sharpness, tonality and contrast; today's lenses are slaves to technology and numbers, and are coldly clinical with harsh, dark shadows and bright highlights, and a flatter, compressed appearance so subjects can seem less three dimensional than older lenses.
An example of the kind of lens I prefer is the 55mm Micro-nikkor AI or the 1960s 35mm Summilux stopped down (it's a bit pants wide open unless you want a very glowy flarey image with lots of coma!)
johnf04
Well-known
The latest sale description I've seen is "heritage", usually attached to a lens for a 1970s SLR.
PKR
Veteran
Design excellence, production length/history (Nikon 35 f1.4 & 55, micro, and Leica 35 Summicron come to mind) are big factors. The number of "famous/classic images" made with the lens and variants that have a long or exceptional publishing history. Today, with all the web BS, it's difficult to know about new lenses without using them for a time.
I don't think photographers make a lens a "classic". Equipment reviewers and marketing people drop the title on them. But, there are some, that are far better than others. I own, and have owned a few.
I don't think photographers make a lens a "classic". Equipment reviewers and marketing people drop the title on them. But, there are some, that are far better than others. I own, and have owned a few.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
You could also look at it as a type/design of lens that made many famous pictures. So Henri Cartier-Bresson's "look" or Garry Winnogrand's "look" that came from using what they used. In truth, I never cared that much. I have a Sonnar-type Jupiter lens that is optically a steaming pile of horse-hockey. Classic? Yeah, it might be that too, but I can't see it.
[Edit: I am just waiting for my old Hexanons to be declared "classic" so I can cash in . . . . any day now. Any day."]
[Edit: I am just waiting for my old Hexanons to be declared "classic" so I can cash in . . . . any day now. Any day."]
PKR
Veteran
Marketing BS like, "pre-owned".
Steve M.
Veteran
OK, you asked for straight talk, so here it is.
If I'm selling, it's classic, special, mint minus, and possibly rare. I expect a premium price because people are hot to buy it.
If I'm buying, it's just an old, beat up camera/lens/part, and I want a discount to take that clunker off your hands.
If I'm selling, it's classic, special, mint minus, and possibly rare. I expect a premium price because people are hot to buy it.
If I'm buying, it's just an old, beat up camera/lens/part, and I want a discount to take that clunker off your hands.
View Range
Well-known
The first post-war advance in lens capability was the application of lens coatings that were top secret during World War II to every lens produced. Contrast jumped an order of magnitude, particularly for high speed lenses with multiple elements. This impact is noticeable in ordinary photographs.
Then even as early as the 1950s new glasses with high refractive index made a difference in optical performance even though the lens diagrams look the same. The Leica 50mm Summicron was revolutionary in sharpness. It's all about the effects of practical design (chromatic aberration, coma, etc) and the computational rigor to remove these with new glass formulas. The Japanese did indeed catch the Germans quickly and then surpassed them.
Then it all changed again with aspherical elements. Leica was the leader in introducing aspherics.
These advances are certainly observable in controlled tests. Whether a photographer can creatively use the changes is up to the photographer. But today's Leica 50mm Summicron M Asp is a standard that is hard to match.
If you looked at two pictures, one from a Canon 0.95 and one from a Leica 0.95, the difference would be obvious.
One are of noticeable / undeniable difference is in telephotos. Look at the progression from Sonnar or Telyt telephotos to today. The performance of today's super-telephotos is simply amazing, with zero chromatic aberration. The sharpness and contrast differences between a 300mm f2.8 Canikon and a Carl Zeiss 300mm f4.0 Sonnar from the classic period is phenomenal.
No one has talked about zoom lenses and their amazing performance improvement. Some only trail because of max aperture.
Then even as early as the 1950s new glasses with high refractive index made a difference in optical performance even though the lens diagrams look the same. The Leica 50mm Summicron was revolutionary in sharpness. It's all about the effects of practical design (chromatic aberration, coma, etc) and the computational rigor to remove these with new glass formulas. The Japanese did indeed catch the Germans quickly and then surpassed them.
Then it all changed again with aspherical elements. Leica was the leader in introducing aspherics.
These advances are certainly observable in controlled tests. Whether a photographer can creatively use the changes is up to the photographer. But today's Leica 50mm Summicron M Asp is a standard that is hard to match.
If you looked at two pictures, one from a Canon 0.95 and one from a Leica 0.95, the difference would be obvious.
One are of noticeable / undeniable difference is in telephotos. Look at the progression from Sonnar or Telyt telephotos to today. The performance of today's super-telephotos is simply amazing, with zero chromatic aberration. The sharpness and contrast differences between a 300mm f2.8 Canikon and a Carl Zeiss 300mm f4.0 Sonnar from the classic period is phenomenal.
No one has talked about zoom lenses and their amazing performance improvement. Some only trail because of max aperture.
Robert Lai
Well-known
The older lenses were simpler. They had a characteristic rendition depending on their optical design.
I've tried meniscus lenses, doublets, and triplets. The first two are usually on some Kodak.
From my viewpoint, the Zeiss Tessar (Leica Elmar) with 4 elements became the first generally usable lens with great center sharpness, and just some of the outer zones fading into unsharpness. This of course, corrects as you close down. The other benefit of this design is that with few air/glass interfaces, contrast was good even in the uncoated glass days.
The Sonnar design gives an image that many of us love for portraits. Again, center sharpness, dissolving into less sharp fields when wide open. The Sonnar is a fancy triplet derivative, using multiple glued elements.
Then comes the Voigtlander Heliar with 5 elements.
Finally, the almost universal Zeiss Planar design.
Beyond this, lens designers have tried to increase contrast and resolution, decrease chromatic aberrations, increase flatness of field, and to make the corner beams of wide angles come from a less oblique angle. This is all to the benefit of digital sensors. Although their results measure spectacularly, when you approach perfection, all lenses seem pretty much the same. They have lost their particular set of aberrations which gave the simpler lenses much of their character.
I have modern and older lenses. I tend to prefer the oldies, as they give an image with a definite vintage feel to it.
I've tried meniscus lenses, doublets, and triplets. The first two are usually on some Kodak.
From my viewpoint, the Zeiss Tessar (Leica Elmar) with 4 elements became the first generally usable lens with great center sharpness, and just some of the outer zones fading into unsharpness. This of course, corrects as you close down. The other benefit of this design is that with few air/glass interfaces, contrast was good even in the uncoated glass days.
The Sonnar design gives an image that many of us love for portraits. Again, center sharpness, dissolving into less sharp fields when wide open. The Sonnar is a fancy triplet derivative, using multiple glued elements.
Then comes the Voigtlander Heliar with 5 elements.
Finally, the almost universal Zeiss Planar design.
Beyond this, lens designers have tried to increase contrast and resolution, decrease chromatic aberrations, increase flatness of field, and to make the corner beams of wide angles come from a less oblique angle. This is all to the benefit of digital sensors. Although their results measure spectacularly, when you approach perfection, all lenses seem pretty much the same. They have lost their particular set of aberrations which gave the simpler lenses much of their character.
I have modern and older lenses. I tend to prefer the oldies, as they give an image with a definite vintage feel to it.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
...what makes a lens "classic", "special" etc?
My rule of thumb is any lens that can result in creamy bokeh in a photo can be said to be the above two statements.
That can be any lens, from a 58mm Primoplan to a Helios 44-2 or a common SLR Rokkor 50mm f 1.7 lens or a Chinon 55mm f 1.7 or a crappy Yashinon 50mm f2 lens that is magical at f5.6 for some reason, to a dusty 90mm f4 Elmar lens.
My rule of thumb is any lens that can result in creamy bokeh in a photo can be said to be the above two statements.
That can be any lens, from a 58mm Primoplan to a Helios 44-2 or a common SLR Rokkor 50mm f 1.7 lens or a Chinon 55mm f 1.7 or a crappy Yashinon 50mm f2 lens that is magical at f5.6 for some reason, to a dusty 90mm f4 Elmar lens.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
I'd say the period started earlier, nevertheless *"classic" means high resolution but low contrast* is exactly my understandig, too
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Any lens within film era with low contrast and soft edges is classic. It could be called as special also.
I could clearly see why Leica and Canon L series lenses are standing above others (for me).
Canon L is with special ingredients in the glass formula. Don't know how Leica does it, but it is more than corrected and aspherical.
I could clearly see why Leica and Canon L series lenses are standing above others (for me).
Canon L is with special ingredients in the glass formula. Don't know how Leica does it, but it is more than corrected and aspherical.
Contarama
Well-known
Triplets...but what is the question again?
RichC
Well-known
I'd say the period started earlier, nevertheless *"classic" means high resolution but low contrast* is exactly my understanding, too
Quite possibly! It depends on what you want from a lens, such as the level of resolution and control of aberrations such as the amount of flare.
I tend to photograph in my studio where flare needs to be well controlled (i.e. effective lens coatings) and sometimes print as big as 1 m (3 ft) (i.e. high resolution). To meet my requirements, optics technology had to develop to a certain point, which for me was the mid to late 1960s.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
When we/you look at photos here on RFF you are seeing a third or forth hand version of the picture and it will be somewhat reduced in size.
So the 36 and 24 megapixel cameras will be resized to (say) 1024 x 78 pixels or even smaller. Doing that hides or removes many of the imperfections as any printer or paste up artist will tell you.
I'd guess that you might think differently if looking at prints or slides done by the same person and process and with the prints at (say) 8" x 12" and bigger still you'd see how crude a lot are.
Regards, David
PS And no two monitors are balanced exactly the same when we are talking about the internet...
PPS And the subject matter distracts people's attention from the lens quality. A good example is the samples on eBay when people are selling cameras. To avoid this look at the photo upside down ...
When we/you look at photos here on RFF you are seeing a third or forth hand version of the picture and it will be somewhat reduced in size.
So the 36 and 24 megapixel cameras will be resized to (say) 1024 x 78 pixels or even smaller. Doing that hides or removes many of the imperfections as any printer or paste up artist will tell you.
I'd guess that you might think differently if looking at prints or slides done by the same person and process and with the prints at (say) 8" x 12" and bigger still you'd see how crude a lot are.
Regards, David
PS And no two monitors are balanced exactly the same when we are talking about the internet...
PPS And the subject matter distracts people's attention from the lens quality. A good example is the samples on eBay when people are selling cameras. To avoid this look at the photo upside down ...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Personal taste.
Luck.
Nostalgia.
Rarity (if it's rare it must be better).
Sample variation.
Genuinely unusual rendering (above all, the Thambar).
An unusually desirable combination of characteristics, especially high speed and small size.
And finally, lack of anything better to do.
Luck.
Nostalgia.
Rarity (if it's rare it must be better).
Sample variation.
Genuinely unusual rendering (above all, the Thambar).
An unusually desirable combination of characteristics, especially high speed and small size.
And finally, lack of anything better to do.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
A classic lens is like listening to Antônio Carlos Jobim perform Dindi
You know it when you hear it
You know it when you hear it
Dogman
Veteran
If I like it, it's "special". If others like it, it's "classic".