Would somebody please explain once and for all...

[NickTrop]

Answers mostly what I expected and not what I'm looking for. Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me give an example:

Classic Leica 50/2 Summicron. It's a 7 element 5 group design. Nothing fancy optically. (Ain't talking about new lenses that are imo overcorrected, high element count). Classic Summicron. Very average specs for a 50mm prime. Not super fast, to the best of my knowledge nothing exotic...

The above is a world renouned lens. A "classic". "Special". "Legendary". Going rate? I dunno. Guessing $1,000 for a pre ASPH?

So, here's a list of some lenses in this focal length range:

Zeiss Planar (C/Y) 50mm f/1.7
Pentax (FA) 43mm f/1.9
Pentax (A) 50mm f/1.2
Canon (EF) 50mm f/1.4
Yashica 50mm f/1.4 and 55mm f/1.2
Porst 55mm f/1.2
Zenitar 50mm f/1.4
Voigtlander 50mm f/2.5 Color Skopar
Voigtlander VM 50mm f/1.1
Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4
Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.4
Pentax-M SMC 50mm f/1.4

So. My question is. For "basic" primes that fall into "basic" widest aperture range, with same or similar optical formula... Apart from build quality and Q/A what is it that distinguishes these lenses optically -- especially considering the cost differential? Everyone has heard of the legendary "cron". Famous photographers swear by it. Old ones command $1,000 price tags. Nobody cares about the Yashica 50mm 1.4. Same optical formula.

Now. I could argue that, perhaps, in the case of the 7/5 configuration, Leica may have crimmped their widest aperture so you didn't get the crappy, flare-y, low constrast, veiled, CA'd output you get when you shoot such a lens at f1.2, 1.4 or at its widest aperture. Just because you "could" create a 1.4 lens at this range doesn't mean you "should".

But one could argue you can get the same results from a Yashica 50/1.4 shooting at f.2 as one could get from a 'Cron. And why is the 'Cron (as one example) regarded as "legendary" and so sought after? What is the technical distinction over a Pentax or Yashica (say) that can be had for $50-60 bucks with the same optical formula?

Is Leica glass "doped"? Is there a technical reason, optically, they're better? Again, I'm talking two "average" non-exotic primes in the same non-exotic focal lengths, with the same (or similar) common elements/groups (7/5, 6/5 etc.) configuration -- 50's say.

Is the glass itself special/different? If so, how? (Again, I'm not talking asph or high index... etc...)

 

[ptpdprinter]

Them 50mm Summicron is a legendary lens because it was made by Leica and a lot of famous photographers used it. Nobody ever took a famous photograph with the Yashinon lens. Specs don't really enter the equation.

 

[bulevardi]

Them 50mm Summicron is a legendary lens because it was made by Leica and a lot of famous photographers used it. Nobody ever took a famous photograph with the Yashinon lens. Specs don't really enter the equation.

You can always shoot with your Yashinon, and say it was shot with an expensive Leica to get your photo look more interesting.

If you make a photo with a standard 50mm lens on a standard Nikon SLR, and even edit a bit, post-process it... even shoot a digital photo and make it look like a vintage one....

Hypothetically, you put the photo online on a forum and mention the photo was taken with your Leica Summicron... and in another topic you mention it was taken with your Yashinon lens....
In which topic you will get the best critiques you guess? Only because it was because of a more expensive brand, or because the crowd exists of more fanboys from a specific brand?

I did something else like this before in another forum, years ago, as experiment and I remember that the results were somewhat "predictable".

😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

To quote the late Dr. Hubert Nasse of Zeiss, "You can't tell what a lens is going to be like until you build it."

In other words, yes, there are differences, but you can't tell what they're going to be in advance.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ptpdprinter]

You can always shoot with your Yashinon, and say it was shot with an expensive Leica to get your photo look more interesting.

That is one reason I never look at, and frankly don't understand, the "show me your [insert camera/lens] shots" threads. You really have no idea what the photos were taken with, and the quality of the images is all over the board, so you don't learn anything. "Look at me: I own a [insert camera/lens]." As if that has anything to do with the image itself. When is the last time you went to a gallery show and the photographer listed his equipment?

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Answers mostly what I expected and not what I'm looking for. Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me give an example:

Classic Leica 50/2 Summicron. It's a 7 element 5 group design. Nothing fancy optically. (Ain't talking about new lenses that are imo overcorrected, high element count). Classic Summicron. Very average specs for a 50mm prime. Not super fast, to the best of my knowledge nothing exotic...

The above is a world renouned lens. A "classic". "Special". "Legendary". Going rate? I dunno. Guessing $1,000 for a pre ASPH?

So, here's a list of some lenses in this focal length range:

Zeiss Planar (C/Y) 50mm f/1.7
Pentax (FA) 43mm f/1.9
Pentax (A) 50mm f/1.2
Canon (EF) 50mm f/1.4
Yashica 50mm f/1.4 and 55mm f/1.2
Porst 55mm f/1.2
Zenitar 50mm f/1.4
Voigtlander 50mm f/2.5 Color Skopar
Voigtlander VM 50mm f/1.1
Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4
Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.4
Pentax-M SMC 50mm f/1.4

So. My question is. For "basic" primes that fall into "basic" widest aperture range, with same or similar optical formula... Apart from build quality and Q/A what is it that distinguishes these lenses optically -- especially considering the cost differential? Everyone has heard of the legendary "cron". Famous photographers swear by it. Old ones command $1,000 price tags. Nobody cares about the Yashica 50mm 1.4. Same optical formula.

Now. I could argue that, perhaps, in the case of the 7/5 configuration, Leica may have crimmped their widest aperture so you didn't get the crappy, flare-y, low constrast, veiled, CA'd output you get when you shoot such a lens at f1.2, 1.4 or at its widest aperture. Just because you "could" create a 1.4 lens at this range doesn't mean you "should".

But one could argue you can get the same results from a Yashica 50/1.4 shooting at f.2 as one could get from a 'Cron. And why is the 'Cron (as one example) regarded as "legendary" and so sought after? What is the technical distinction over a Pentax or Yashica (say) that can be had for $50-60 bucks with the same optical formula?

Is Leica glass "doped"? Is there a technical reason, optically, they're better? Again, I'm talking two "average" non-exotic primes in the same non-exotic focal lengths, with the same (or similar) common elements/groups (7/5, 6/5 etc.) configuration -- 50's say.

Is the glass itself special/different? If so, how? (Again, I'm not talking asph or high index... etc...)

I’ve got 4 of the lenses mentioned here, plus the Summicron, and, yes, they are more the same than different in terms of results most people are going to get from them day in and day out, especially for things viewed on the web, and, yes, composition and lighting will have a bigger effect than which one of these lenses you used.
But, if used identically, and looked at closely, the results are not “the same”.
I know that the optical reasons for that have not been presented so far, and I cannot help either, past this much: Coatings vary from company to company and these effect contrast and color. Lenses are made of glass which is the medium through which the light has to pass. Glass is not just melted sand. The composition of elements used to make the glass effects the results, notably saturation, and varies from company to company. The more exotic formulations cost more to produce. Glass formulations are mostly proprietary, and manufacturers are not giving that information away as AFAIK. So, it’s not all design and number of elements, it is execution as well, as is true for every manufactured item.
(Radioactive elements please come back, all is forgiven.)

Etc. But, you knew all that.

Some really nice performing lenses in the list of cheapos you provided, but they are not exactly Summicrons. Nor is a Summicron exactly a Porst, which is a very nice lens, if the Porst provides what is wanted in a given situation for a given photog.

As to whether any of these differences are worth the money depends mostly on how much money someone has and how tight they are with it. It isnt really a photographic question. If it is worth it to person “A”, it’s worth it. End of story.

But, I think you are asking for what is specifically chemically different about Leica glass formulations or coatings which yields slightly different results, and someone else probably needs to answer that. Maybe another Mueller investigation can turn something up given enough time and money.

 

[Filter Factor]

You can always shoot with your Yashinon, and say it was shot with an expensive Leica to get your photo look more interesting.

Hypothetically, you put the photo online on a forum and mention the photo was taken with your Leica Summicron... and in another topic you mention it was taken with your Yashinon lens....
In which topic you will get the best critiques you guess?

Greetings, bulevardi,

Would be interesting, I suppose, to post photos taken with the cheapest, bargain-basement plastic thrift-store cameras and claim they were done with a Leica, just to see if anyone can tell otherwise (I predict: No they cannot!). But I think most people here would not do such a switcheroo.

I like the "Show me your pics from a Xxxxx camera..." threads because I think it is interesting to see what people are doing with their vintage film gear, besides using it to weight down some shelves somewhere.

Cheers,
Robert

 

[Dogman]

Years ago when I still shot film, I processed a couple of rolls of HP5 (or maybe it was Tri-X, don't remember right now) that had been shot with both a Canon EOS camera (EOS 1n, IIRC) and a Leica M6. With the Leica, I had used a 50mm Summicron and with the Canon I used the $75 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 lens. The Canon lens was noted to be an outstanding little lens for the price but it had poor build quality and substandard ergonomics, typical of "bargain" optics. The Summicron was, of course, a "classic".

Both rolls of film were shot under similar lighting conditions on the same day an hour or so apart. Both were processed at the same time in the same chemicals. Both rolls of film were virtually identical in observed image quality, enough so that I had to think about which camera I was using to tell them apart. The only true difference was one camera/lens combination was considered "classic" and the other was high quality consumer electronics with a bargain lens.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I have some lenses that I find more pleasing in rendition than others. But I'm still convinced that light quality is the most important factor.

 

[seany65]

I'd say a 'Classic' lens could be:

Of a design that is so good for its price range that others have copied it because they can't do better. eg. which company has not done a Tessar copy?

 

[Sumarongi]

I'd say a 'Classic' lens could be:

Of a design that is so good for its price range that others have copied it because they can't do better. eg. which company has not done a Tessar copy?

Yes, also this makes sense, IMHO.

I would add, if we're actually talking about the lens as a physical entity: a *classic* lens doesn't contain plastic. -- At least, if there's plastic in it, plastic is used *with discretion*, as Roger Hicks once said IIRC.

 

[tunalegs]

So. My question is. For "basic" primes that fall into "basic" widest aperture range, with same or similar optical formula... Apart from build quality and Q/A what is it that distinguishes these lenses optically -- especially considering the cost differential? Everyone has heard of the legendary "cron". Famous photographers swear by it. Old ones command $1,000 price tags. Nobody cares about the Yashica 50mm 1.4. Same optical formula.

The word "formula" is often used inappropriately (or at least in a too general, vague way) when talking about lens designs. The Yashica and Cron may be built to the same "pattern" of groups of elements, air spaces, etc. but they are not the same "formula".

Let's dumb this way, way down.

Before computers, every lens company had their own computations, their own formulas, which were shared between many, if not all of their lens designs. Because doing these computations took so long before computers, good enough was often good enough, and it wasn't worth the time fixing minor errors. This meant that any flaw in the formulas was shared by all the products in their line up. This is how different companies got associated with different optical effects.*

Then consider, that these proprietary computations would effect every variable. Compare two triplets between two different companies. Each element is going to be radiused according its respective company's formulas. The glass thickness between the two will be different. The air spacing will be different, etc. This despite both lenses being the same "formula" (in the vaguer, misleading, popular usage of the word).

This is not even accounting for differences in coating technologies, or the actual construction of the lens barrels, diaphragms, etc. which vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer. Nor the manufacture of the glass itself.

*and this is before we even get into different companies optimizing their formulas in search of particular qualities, like valuing a perfect lack of distortion, over sharpness, or whatever else.

 

[gavinlg]

Let's dumb this way, way down.

Before computers, every lens company had their own computations, their own formulas, which were shared between many, if not all of their lens designs. Because doing these computations took so long before computers, good enough was often good enough, and it wasn't worth the time fixing minor errors. This meant that any flaw in the formulas was shared by all the products in their line up. This is how different companies got associated with different optical effects.*

Then consider, that these proprietary computations would effect every variable. Compare two triplets between two different companies. Each element is going to be radiused according its respective company's formulas. The glass thickness between the two will be different. The air spacing will be different, etc. This despite both lenses being the same "formula" (in the vaguer, misleading, popular usage of the word).

This is not even accounting for differences in coating technologies, or the actual construction of the lens barrels, diaphragms, etc. which vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer. Nor the manufacture of the glass itself.

*and this is before we even get into different companies optimizing their formulas in search of particular qualities, like valuing a perfect lack of distortion, over sharpness, or whatever else.

It's kind of like if you took a pair of mainline Chinese made Levi's 501's and compared it to an American made, cone mills denim LVC (Levi's vintage clothing) 501.

Basically the same thing in a very similar cut, with all the details seemingly similar. In reality, the Denim, the stitching, the way it's built - hidden rivets in the back pockets instead of basic bar tacks on the cheaper 501s, the indigo dye used, the way the machine used to chainstitch around the hem on the USA ones is designed to 'pucker' the hemline after washing, the way the specifically woven 'white oak' denim fades on the LVC ones - The LVC models at 3-4x the price are on another planet of how they wear and how they last. With design, the devil is truly in the details.

The quantifying point is that some people are happy with their $40 Chinese made 501s that in some or even most circumstances look pretty similar to a pair of 78 LVC 60's, and for some people (like myself) the LVC's are worth the extra coin.

 

[bulevardi]

Now I'll be the first to admit that I have some lenses that I find more pleasing in rendition than others. But I'm still convinced that light quality is the most important factor.

Indeed.
One of the first lenses I bought was a regular 50mm f1.8 for a regular Nikon electronic film camera. It's a lens made of plastic. And it's sold by local shops here in Belgium to many students going to photography school as they need to work with that 50mm angle in their courses.
It's sold as a 'classic' lens as the angle is that range, doesn't matter which brand.

Anyway, even though it's a cheap lens, I enjoyed it a lot, I'm in love with the angle, the way I had to look and compose the image,...
Until I bought a DSLR where this same lens fits, but with a crop factor it's looking like a 75mm now... too small view. So I bought a 30mm for my DSLR which gives me a 45mm view.

 

[David Hughes]

Well, um, I think people say classic to mean something we all know about because someone famous (in the loosest possible sense) has been seen using one. As someone once said about classical music; something that we can all hum or whistle.

In the other sense there are some classic plastic lenses.

And the refractive index of the glass changes things and when plastics came along in optical qualities a lot of glass compound lenses were turned out as - or evolved into - single plastic ones, and then there's the plastic ASPH lenses and so on and so forth...

Regards, David

 

[phofseth]

At least two senses of the word here. Users & collectors and additional questions asked by the thread starter; how do seemingly similar designs have a different performance - if discernible.

Marco Cavina has an excellent website going into some detail about a number of "classics". Refraction and dispersion of each of the glasses chosen stand out as does the optimal subject distance desired from the finished product.

Other differences such as coating, multi-spectral coating and mechanical robustness has already been mentioned. Quality control and precision "sample variation" is another consideration. Mr. Cicalas measurements seem not to stumble upon series of mass produced optics which are diffraction limited.

As for the use of the term,one of Lewis Carolls fairytale figures indicated that a word means what you want it to mean.

For collectors I would imagine that a first of its kind like Voigtländers Petzval qualifies. From there onwards "first" can be debated. Glatzels concave front on the Zeiss 50mm for the Icarex? Angenieux´s zooms and DEMs? Maksutovs mirror lens?

Just as for classic and vintage cars, fame counts. (Rolls, Bugatti) but peculiar designs also qualify (2CV, Panhard). For past excellence, the optical factory equivalents (Leitz, Zeiss, Cooke and so on) springs to mind. A strange design prize might go to the Imagon.

And like for any other attachment to things, like art collection, demand and price can be totally dependent on personal taste and fashion.

p.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . And like for any other attachment to things, like art collection, demand and price can be totally dependent on personal taste and fashion.

In other words, "Don't look for a simplistic answer to a complex question".

Exactly...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The word "formula" is often used inappropriately (or at least in a too general, vague way) when talking about lens designs. The Yashica and Cron may be built to the same "pattern" of groups of elements, air spaces, etc. but they are not the same "formula".

Let's dumb this way, way down.

Before computers, every lens company had their own computations, their own formulas, which were shared between many, if not all of their lens designs. Because doing these computations took so long before computers, good enough was often good enough, and it wasn't worth the time fixing minor errors. This meant that any flaw in the formulas was shared by all the products in their line up. This is how different companies got associated with different optical effects.*

Then consider, that these proprietary computations would effect every variable. Compare two triplets between two different companies. Each element is going to be radiused according its respective company's formulas. The glass thickness between the two will be different. The air spacing will be different, etc. This despite both lenses being the same "formula" (in the vaguer, misleading, popular usage of the word).

This is not even accounting for differences in coating technologies, or the actual construction of the lens barrels, diaphragms, etc. which vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer. Nor the manufacture of the glass itself.

*and this is before we even get into different companies optimizing their formulas in search of particular qualities, like valuing a perfect lack of distortion, over sharpness, or whatever else.

Exactly. See also post 24.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Would be interesting, I suppose, to post photos taken with the cheapest, bargain-basement plastic thrift-store cameras and claim they were done with a Leica, . . .

Dear Robert,

Not really. By the time the image has been strained through a computer and put up on a low-resolution computer screen (and they're all low-resolution compared with all but the tiniest prints), you are unlikely to be able to tell much about the lens.

Cheers,

R.

 

[shimokita]

Consider the NIKKOR-H Auto 2.8cm F3.5... "it's a reversed telephoto type (now called retrofocus type) composed of a concave front lens group having a convexo (positive) lens and a concave lens and; a ordinary (convexo) rear lens group composed of four lenses having in order of a convexo lens, an aperture stop, a concave lens, a convexo lens and a convexo lens." (1000 & 1 №12). It's not the best Nikon 28mm manual focus lens based on current thinking, but when did that matter... and given its design and timing (March 1960) I would consider it a classic, and you have to love the results... I shoot it almost exclusively with Neopan 100 or the odd roll of KG200.

I was attracted to and purchased the lens mainly because of its place in history (Nikon F, PJ, SE Asia, "Lost over Laos") and only later realized that I like the results... to me the lens has its own way of producing results. Recently I took the lens to Batad in the Philippines (along with my F3P & 50mm f/1.2) and only took a few photos with it... it gave me one of my favorite shots of the trip.

 

[Teemō1]

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.

Not really... As early as 1886 the phenomenon of oxide coatings was noted by Lord Rayleigh and 10 years later by Dennis Taylor. Fluoride deposition coatings were patented first by Zeiss in 1935 and first sold in 1939.
In the U.S, B&L sold the first coated projection lenses to Technicolor in the same year. In 1941 Kodak introduced the first completely single-coated line of consumer camera lenses.
I mean, I guess anti-reflection coatings could have been top-secret for all of about 3 months into the war... assuming the Nazi's hid that Zeiss patent from the world 4 years before.

Then it all changed again with aspherical elements. Leica was the leader in introducing aspherics.

Popular belief seems to indicate that it was Navitar which first mass-produced lens with an aspheric in 1955, 11 years before the Noctilux 50/1.2?

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.

Sorry to break the romance of history (although I find it just as charming an idea), but most large optical companies employed rooms full of 'human computers', mostly women, to ray-trace by mechanical calculators at the behest of the chief designer. Tracing a single ray through a single surface took about 10 minutes and around 20 rays were required at minimum for a lens with moderate aperture, before the aberrations could be understood and the design adjusted and the ray-tracing repeated again. One of the first electronic computers developed for the US Army, ENIAC (and subsequently EDVAC) was used for optical design. A single ray-trace through a single surface only took 1 second on average with it in 1946, so most of the time they were idle while the operator input the data.
Hence, the first generalised stored programs were created so that the computer could optimise the design after ray-tracing.
These programs became more available with highly reliable, mass-produced business computers like the IBM 650 in 1953, and the Zuse Z5 in Germany delivered to Leitz in the same year to assist optical design work, but due to the use of relays rather than vacuum tubes (for reliability of calculations - sometimes tubes made mistakes, though easily identifiable mistakes for an experienced ray-tracer), only managed to perform calculations about 125x slower on average, with lower address space, much, much smaller memory - but weighing about the same.

From 1957, optimisation programs were designed in FORTRAN.
It was not so common for businesses to own their own so-called 'automatic calculators' as it was for them to rent time on them elsewhere. I recall reading a while ago that Zeiss East (or was it Kodak in the 50's?) would have an employee hand-deliver punch-cards across the country every morning, so that results could be optimised in the afternoon or next morning.
Certainly by 1968, large computers were the new norm in Japan but by now they were (understandably) late adopters. Still, Minolta introduced many large-aperture high performance primes over the next few years, beginning with the 58/1.2 and 35/1.8. 10 years later they had so much spare time for clock cycles, they used them to creatively explore and optimise the out of focus areas too! 😕 😀

Undoubtedly too, Fujinon's 11-layer Super EBC coating, first applied in 1969 on TV zoom lenses and by 1972 - with limited supply of the raw materials - on the 55mm F3.5 Macro; and OCLI's 6-layer Multilayer Coating used in the early 60's in military applications before being fully commercialised in 1970 with their new Multilayer Automatic Coater (the original machine still in use today) and thus licensed to Pentax as SMC in 1971, would not have been possible without computer modelling, and electromechanical-integrated manufacturing.