Reading mode: Light Dark

Probably the most amazing thing I've read about modern vs old lenses and optics

Go to last post
primeshooter

primeshooter

Veteran Member
Messages
8,962
Solutions
5
Reaction score
9,038
Location
Scotland
Last edited:
Amazing! Thanks for sharing, it has been bookmarked. I would love to hear anotherMike opinion on these articles though, since he's been very valuable source of information and his writings helped me with lens purchases. Cheers, Alex
 
primeshooter said:
Thanks to fprime on here...this will blow your mind regarding what you think is a good lens...frankly i read so much nonsense on this and every other forum on the internet about lenses being sharp and unsharp that these people really ought to read this. Open your mind...

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/
Click to expand...
 
wildlifr said:
I don't find it very convincing. It seems that if this analysis was correct, it would be relatively easy to demonstrate with a side by side comparison of the different lenses he's referring to.
Click to expand...
The 28 mm Otus (>6000$) vs the 28 mm Nikon D (<300$) comparison was pretty compelling I thought....

--
https://500px.com/ronan_M
 
Last edited:
I don't believe it, either. He talks about more elements meaning more flare, but the story is more complicated than that. Modern coatings can do a lot, and older lenses don't have them. That's one of the reasons that the older lenses have so few elements.

His side-by-side pictures are carefully chosen, but they aren't convincing. He's just picked a few images that are somewhat aligned with his prejudices, but I looked closely at a few, and similarly-lit parts seem more similar than he'd like to suggest.

A picture taken indoors under fluorescent light or maybe skylights doesn't have as much lighting contrast as an image taken in the sun. I'm supposed to be surprised? It's due to the lens?
 
Ronan_M said:
wildlifr said:
I don't find it very convincing. It seems that if this analysis was correct, it would be relatively easy to demonstrate with a side by side comparison of the different lenses he's referring to.
Click to expand...
The 28 mm Otus (>6000$) vs the 28 mm Nikon D (<300$) comparison was pretty compelling I thought....
Click to expand...
 
primeshooter said:
Thanks to fprime on here...this will blow your mind regarding what you think is a good lens...frankly i read so much nonsense on this and every other forum on the internet about lenses being sharp and unsharp that these people really ought to read this. Open your mind...

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/
Click to expand...
If that's who I think it is I'm going to ignore it. He seemed to be aligned with some guy who calls himself "the angry photographer". Whose goal in life seems to be a campaign to denigrate Sigma lenses.
 
All I see are a bunch of vague hand-wavy statements and apples-to-oranges comparison of completely different scenes (no true A/B comparisons). A sprinkling of completely made-up diagrams of attributes that cannot be measured and you have the makings of utter bunkum in its purest form.

At least it probably gave the optical engineers working for the companies named a jolly good laugh.
 
Last edited:
...make a bunch of outlandish, ludicrous claims and wait for people to post links to your controversial "revelations" in online forums, kicking up debate and, like magic, page views.

Both KR and The Angry Pornographer had made careers out of this model, and now along comes this clown. At least the people in this forum are way too smart to fall for this trick.

Oh, wait...
 
Lighting not lenses. You have to question any photog who compares such different lighting conditions to make their point.

--
Just keep clicking, something will turn out fantastic.
 
Last edited:
primeshooter said:
Thanks to fprime on here...this will blow your mind regarding what you think is a good lens...frankly i read so much nonsense on this and every other forum on the internet about lenses being sharp and unsharp that these people really ought to read this. Open your mind...

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/
Click to expand...
I would strongly suggest you be less prone to buy into the first convoluted conspiracy theory that purports to show everyone is wrong, and just use your eyes.

I mean seriously: sharpness is unimportant? The only thing that matters is microcontrast? Here is a reality check: I can bump up microcontrast in post, but I cannot invent detail and resolution that is not there.
 
The problem with this article is the same as with all others who make CLAIMS: they are trying to set rules for people who have their own interests. The only objective i find acceptable is to tell the truth about the performance of any piece of gear, whether that characteristic is appealing is up to the buyer. This guy/gal should in no way be using phrases like "supposed to" or "should be", how can anybody tell me what kind of lens i should like?

If i want my corners to be sharp for landscapes, who is anybody to tell me different? If i like the look of bokeh circles, who is to tell me i shouldn't buy a mirror lens? May as well tell me i shouldn't like the taste of white chocolate. I agree the most expensive lens isn't always the best, but what is actually "best" is up to the buyer and nobody else.

This is why i prefer to stick to the very thing that author seems to dislike, spec charts and sample gallerys: they offer nothing more than the truth, without any opinions attached. I will form my own opinions, tyvm.
 
paulski66 said:
...make a bunch of outlandish, ludicrous claims and wait for people to post links to your controversial "revelations" in online forums, kicking up debate and, like magic, page views.

Both KR and The Angry Pornographer had made careers out of this model, and now along comes this clown. At least the people in this forum are way too smart to fall for this trick.

Oh, wait...
Click to expand...
I was about to type that, so... thanks! :-D
 
paulski66 said:
...make a bunch of outlandish, ludicrous claims and wait for people to post links to your controversial "revelations" in online forums, kicking up debate and, like magic, page views.

Both KR and The Angry Pornographer had made careers out of this model, and now along comes this clown. At least the people in this forum are way too smart to fall for this trick.

Oh, wait...
Click to expand...
I am still processing it in my mind. One thing is true, and curious. I prefer AF-D lenses to their modern variants in their rendering (generally speaking).

--
google + https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
facebook https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, this article feels like "new age" stories, quite nicely dressed up with those little "line of realism" pyramids.

While I do agree that some lenses do seem to reach some kind of "magical" balance that make them churn out more pleasing images more consistently than others, there is also a strong element of kool aid and some luck in the mix.

But lenses of identical focal length shot with same lighting from same distance with same position of model's face will not change the viewer's perception of the size of that model's nose! That is complete tin foil hat illumination.
 
Last edited:
Photo Thoughts said:
I don't believe it, either. He talks about more elements meaning more flare, but the story is more complicated than that. Modern coatings can do a lot, and older lenses don't have them. That's one of the reasons that the older lenses have so few elements.
Click to expand...
If you want to test for flare in its effect on micro contrast, it's pretty easy to do. Just shoot B&W test charts and measure the contrast between black and white parts. Compare this at at a wide range of line width to see whether you can find an advantage of older lenses. Of course, what you'd be actually doing is measuring the full MTF curve. Which brings us to the actual claim of this blog post, that modern lenses surpass the MTF curve of older lenses in some areas, both at the very high frequency end (aka more resolution) as well as around the 50% mark (aka higher MTF50 values) but that over part of the range the older lenses produce a higher MTF value (aka higher micro-contrast, at whatever frequency this might be). Show me such MTF curves and I will consider this claim.

I've once created this fictional example of two lenses with the same MTF50 values but widely different contrast levels at different frequencies (fictional because I don't think optical laws would make such curves even possible). But if you want to make any claims, show me such curves where on lens beats the other in one area and the other lens beats it in another area:



950903742e434f86aef2b36f3883c100.jpg.png

 
Modern lenses work great, have beautiful rendition.

I have many modern lenses and many older lenses.

I prefer the newer ones. The images look better.

maljo
 
The only picture with the same subject in the same location, she is looking straight at the camera for the Otus and her head is angled for the Nikkor. She is also smiling in the Nikkor shot (IMHO the oldest trick in the book to make something look better).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top