Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Some persuasive arguments on both sides, and I would suspect that the esoteric lenses probably do have point of diminishing returns akin to audiophile equipment.

Is there at least a consensus among most that the Nikon lens would perform adequately when compared with the lens that is 20 times the cost? This is interesting as allegedly that particular Nikon isn't even a favored model.
 
Last edited:
jpwalker said:
Some persuasive arguments on both sides, and I would suspect that the esoteric lenses probably do have point of diminishing returns akin to audiophile equipment.

Is there at least a consensus among most that the Nikon lens would perform adequately when compared with the lens that is 20 times the cost? This is interesting as allegedly that particular Nikon isn't even a favored model.
Click to expand...
Yeah I haven't read through the entire thread, I have heard some fairly knowledgeable folk discuss the way they preferred the "rendering" of a particular lens, meaning more than sharpness, and more than bokeh and transitions between subject and bokeh, often talking about micro-contrast and the way an image pops, or colour. So while his presentation might be jarring and and inaccurate, I would have thought there is something to the basic idea.

As you not above, the 28mm F2.8D is from what I've heard the absolute worst lens in that wide series, or less good than the 20, 24, and 35 at least.
 
Steve Bingham said:
I read the entire article (sick, I know) and ended up shaking my head in disbelief. All are free to believe it, but it simply flies against what I have struggled to learn over the past 60 years (including a masters degree in photography). I'm gone.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
Latest postings are always at the bottom of each page.
Click to expand...
Steve, just out of interest - have enjoyed a number of your lens reviews and comments - without buying his methodology or presentation, isn't there something to the basic premise that there are lenses we like because of the way they render (be that colour, bokeh, bokeh transition, micro-contrast, a more three-dimensional look) which are often not sharp wide open in the corners at F1.4 or F2?

I just have seen quite a lot of discussion about the character of a lens, one thing I certainly do know is that if you are looking for beautiful bokeh, the onion shaped bokeh of some of the Otuses certainly is not what most people would consider "good" let alone "outstanding". The Sigma Arts are "good" in this area rather than any more than that I would have thought also - appreciate these are subjective considerations, whereas sharpness is empirical.
 
ZJ24 said:
Steve, just out of interest - have enjoyed a number of your lens reviews and comments - without buying his methodology or presentation, isn't there something to the basic premise that there are lenses we like because of the way they render (be that colour, bokeh, bokeh transition, micro-contrast, a more three-dimensional look) which are often not sharp wide open in the corners at F1.4 or F2?
Click to expand...
Of course there's something to this premise. I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise. And the linked article does little or nothing to support this premise.
 
I'm not Steve, but I pretty much agree with what Paul comments above me...

There is NO argument that there are subjective aspects to lens performance. And there is NO argument that some aspects of lens performance might suit some tasks more than others, and vice versa - if you read my (admittedly long) reply elsewhere, and then read some of the Zeiss white papers, you'll see Dr. Nasse himself says even a page full of data can't possibly describe everything about a lens. Zeiss themselves, when they designed the 85/1.4 Milvus, using a similar planar design as the 85/1.4 Otus, chose a slightly different approach by using no aspherics in the design for the purpose of bokeh, knowing that that would mean a bit "less" performance wide open. (And as a note, I've shot both lenses and own the Milvus - the Milvus stopped down is damned close to the Otus but perhaps subjectively a touch more "relaxed" in its presentation - and capable of showing dimensionality (3D), honesty and the whole bit). Since lens design is so complex, and there is no perfect lens, it's absolutely expected that some lenses will have characteristics that make them a better match to a task, or preferred by a photographer.

However, the question I also raised in my reply stands: Can we be absolutely sure that the lenses properties are what are to blame for someone preferring one image over another. Again, if you take a shot that is technically unsound, and has issues due to lighting or what have you, and you use a lens that masks some of this by virtue of it not being well corrected, and then you use a lens that is better corrected and doesn't mask the other flaws that are present long before the lens was ever mounted, is it the lenses fault? This of course is a different situation than bokeh. I see too many people going on the "modern lenses are clinical and cold" when in reality the odds are that those sample people are seeing things (that are not so positive) that are now being *revealed* by the more honest (better corrected) lens. Is that the lenses fault? If these lenses were so horrible, why are SO many photographers who DO have excellent craft able to get amazing images out of them, images with depth, 3D pop, realistic tonality, natural sharpness, etc, etc? If the lenses were so flawed from the get go due to element count, this couldn't occur.

So The issue many of us have with the blogger is that his interpretation of the "why" is completely and utterly wrong - it has no basis at all once one takes the time to understand what goes on with lens design and the rest of the chain. So it's his concept that only simple lens designs from an older era can produce depth that we feel is incorrect. I mean, his stance is laughable - he starts out with his statement of microcontrast not being related to resolution, when the fact (not an opinion, but fact) is that resolution and contrast are always related. You just can't get around that. Trying to take a position that he is correct is like trying to argue that 2+2 really doesn't equal 4. You just can't get there. Nobody is arguing that there aren't subjective differences, or even objective differences that make lens B better suited to task X than lens C is to task Z, it's this nonsense that modern lens design is inept and only older simple lenses can convey these properties he speaks of.

-m
 
Last edited:
What about the notion the an old and inexpensive Nikon can perform adequately even when compared to the Otus at 20 times the cost?

This is what fascinates me as opposed to arguing about the more nebulous "qualities".
 
Last edited:
How can you tell for sure?

You may not have read my (long) reply elsewhere in this thread, but one of the things I said, and always sat, is that "nothing can be more potentially misleading than an improperly done test".

So you have a guy who walks into an even where Zeiss is showing the Otus line. He takes one, mounts it, takes a handheld snapshot of someone, then changes to the Nikkor, and repeats it. Note that a) the model has moved, b) the lighting is thus different, c) the focus on the Otus shot is missed.

And from THAT you want to make an absolute statement that the Nikon can hang with the Otus? Really? He did shoddy testing, so therefore, you can't take his results seriously. At all, His test, and therefore his results, become invalid. Case closed. Discussion over. If one decides to test, they need to do it properly, not quick cowboy style so they can rush off to a blog to write something to make them feel important.

Now, on the other hand, there really aren't many "awful" lenses today. And there always will be a lot of expense related to the "very best" versus the "pretty good". I've shot over 55+ Nikons including most every wide, normal and semi-tele in the AIS and AF-D line, and I've shot the two longer Otii, but not the 28. I own a mix of Nikon, Sigma ART, and Zeiss glass, all modern designs, and all of my choices were borne from exhaustive, proper testing (I test for a living) with the idea to match the lenses properties to the tasks I need them for. So I know what a lot of glass shoots like. And of course it all depends on where the bar has been set for image quality. 1024 pixel wide web images on some site that mangles the hell out of your jpegs? You're right - there would be absolutely zero point to an Otus. Probably zero point to even the old 28 AFD on a DSLR honestly. But on the other end of the scale, a DSLR shooter who prints large landscape prints, well, they sure as HELL are going to see the advantages of the Otus, because it's going to have great corners and edges while the Nikon doesn't, and have less veiling flare, better astigmatism control, and likely far better control of the color aberrations. And when you are printing large and excellence is your goal, then it becomes quickly clear that the Otus will get you there and quite possibly no other wide angle lens will do as well.

Obviously there are many points between those two poles, but just because you or I may not have the bar set as high as the guy who does buy the Otus 28 doesn't mean it's not worth it. As with many things, it gets expensive quick to move the bar past a certain point of pretty good for those incremental gains, and every photographer will have a different take on whether his current glass is good enough, or not. A lot of times it depends on the desired end result...

-m
 
Last edited:
jpwalker said:
What about the notion the an old and inexpensive Nikon can perform adequately even when compared to the Otus at 20 times the cost?

This is what fascinates me as opposed to arguing about the more nebulous "qualities".
Click to expand...
Define "adequately."

A kit lens performs "adequately." An iPhone performs "adequately." A d3300 certainly performs more than "adequately."

If "adequate" is what you're after, why are you here, in the realm of $2,000+ pro and semi-pro full frame cameras, when any low-level dx model - hell, even one that's 8 years old and that can be had for $300 - is more than adequate when compared to cameras 4-to-10+ times their cost?

Just go buy yourself a d90 with an old 18-200 VR and enjoy yourself...
 
Last edited:
noirdesir said:
Then let's add some actually correct generalities:
  • (Uncorrected) residual spherical aberration is often credited with creating a smooth bokeh and a pleasant rendering of skin (the 105 & 135 mm f/2 DC lenses actually let the user the amount of this residual spherical aberration). But this residual spherical aberration robs such lenses of bite.
  • Overcorrected spherical aberration (employed to minimise the blurring effect of spherical aberration) results in bright rings on the outside of defocussed highlights which make the bokeh nervous as you have these overlapping bright rings in blurred background.
  • Aspherical lens elements (and I think mostly moulded aspherical lens elements), besides of course reducing/removing spherical aberrations are equally credited with a nervous bokeh. In defocussed highlights moulded aspherical lens elements can result in onion rings (I think because the moulding is not as smooth as polished lens elements). It's these onion rings that make blurred areas somewhat nervous looking.
Click to expand...
Yes - and that's why chasing sharpness exclusively is a dead end nobody follows today. The conflict between sharpness and OOF rendering is clearly not such that one must choose one or the other, though. To me it seems that the compromises get better and better over time. For example, it may seem that Sigma has mostly got rid of their artsy onion rings now.

Still, as I have written before, I think there may be a long term market for improved versions of a few of the classical formulas, like the 105/1.8 AIS, 85/1.4 AIS and 35/1.4 AIS.
 
Sorry, how can you make a valued judgement on the worth of the lenses when the comaprison photos are of different subject matter, in different scenes under different lighting conditions???
 
noirdesir said:
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
Click to expand...
Check out this thread at the Photographic Science and Technology forum:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Folks there argue that our eyes are more sensitive to higher contrast in the low to middle frequency ranges, and that the highest resolved frequencies are visually less important. This, of course, is entirely depending on the image size, display resolution, and viewing distance, but under ordinary conditions, it would seem that high resolution may not be that important.

So, some say that many modern lenses produce 'flat' rendering, and photographically, I'd argue that 'flat' might be a synonym for "low-contrast". If a modern lens doesn't render low and medium frequencies with adequate contrast, might it appear to be somewhat flat?

Because of the importance of rendering large and medium sized detail with good contrast, someone mentioned that instead of the lens quality being called 'microcontrast', we should call it 'macrocontrast'.

--

The Refracted Light

A website about the Art and Science of Photography
therefractedlight.blogspot.com therefractedlight.blogspot.com
 
I think someone is having a lend of us...
 
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...
To sum up the arguments:

Where this guy is right, the point is trivial. Nobody with a minimum of knowledge, and certainly not the lens makers, will build or buy lenses optimized for sharpness/flat field/coma corrections etc etc only. The rendering quality is an important design criterion. It may weigh in a lot, like the 58/1.4G Nikkor, or a bit less, like the Sigma 50/1.4A.

Where the points are not trivial, he, and like minded people, are mostly wrong. For example, while there may be a bit more to "micro contrast" than just resolution, resolution is the most important factor in any sensible operationalization of the concept "micro contrast". And flawed testing completely disqualifies any argument built upon it. Good testing may be very hard.

Given the optimization situation, there will be a continuum of "optimal" design choices with respect to the more objective, measurable, criteria. If a lens meets the actual criteria, it is "good enough" for that use. Therefore, it is almost impossible to say that a lens is not "good enough" - it may have a splendid career in Facebook postings, for example, where it blows away all the cell phone selfies. On the other hand, declaring that some simpler lens is "as good as" or even "better than" the lenses scoring highest according to standard measurements is not only ignorant, it is very arrogant. Because it implies that nobody actually needs the extra qualities of the high end models.

Rendering quality is always important, and there is nothing inherently wrong with making it the most important criterion for choosing glass. But, that is a choice based on subjective criteria, and the quality assessment will also be highly subjective, plus normally based on the actual use situations. For example, there may be times I use my 35/1.4 AIS, but for the vast majority of situations, I grab the Sigma 35A. It certainly is way more versatile, and for the first time in a rather long photographic life, I can shoot a 35mm at wider than f/2.2 with good or even excellent results. Missed that a lot through my early life :-)
 
paulski66 said:
ZJ24 said:
Steve, just out of interest - have enjoyed a number of your lens reviews and comments - without buying his methodology or presentation, isn't there something to the basic premise that there are lenses we like because of the way they render (be that colour, bokeh, bokeh transition, micro-contrast, a more three-dimensional look) which are often not sharp wide open in the corners at F1.4 or F2?
Click to expand...
Of course there's something to this premise. I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise. And the linked article does little or nothing to support this premise.
Click to expand...
OK so then do you think the guy's methodology / model (the 3D / Large Aperture / Optical Correction Triangle - I have no idea if this is his concept or adapted - and line of realism) is garbage? I just haven't read much by anyone trying to quantify those concepts before.

I definitely do know that DxOMark ratings for lenses omit many of the most important characteristics of a lens for some people. The bokeh quality alone would rule out certain very expensive and highly rated lenses for some portrait photographers, others wouldn't care.
 
paulski66 said:
If "adequate" is what you're after, why are you here, in the realm of $2,000+ pro and semi-pro full frame cameras, when any low-level dx model - hell, even one that's 8 years old and that can be had for $300 - is more than adequate when compared to cameras 4-to-10+ times their cost?

Just go buy yourself a d90 with an old 18-200 VR and enjoy yourself...
Click to expand...
I think this is a misconception - that the need for all attributes is correlated in higher end camera users.

I need (or want or like) the low-light performance, bright OVF, DoF control and DR of FX. I need (or want or like) the compactness and large apertures of a prime or the speed of a fast zoom.

I don't need the optical perfection of some modern lenses with the size, weight and cost penalty that entails, and sometimes the aperture penalty (I am thinking of the 16-35 f4). I find the AFDs I have (20, 35, 85, 135 and 17-35) more than adequate. I like them.
 
anotherMike said:
I'm not Steve, but I pretty much agree with what Paul comments above me...

So The issue many of us have with the blogger is that his interpretation of the "why" is completely and utterly wrong - it has no basis at all once one takes the time to understand what goes on with lens design and the rest of the chain. So it's his concept that only simple lens designs from an older era can produce depth that we feel is incorrect. I mean, his stance is laughable - he starts out with his statement of microcontrast not being related to resolution, when the fact (not an opinion, but fact) is that resolution and contrast are always related. You just can't get around that. Trying to take a position that he is correct is like trying to argue that 2+2 really doesn't equal 4. You just can't get there. Nobody is arguing that there aren't subjective differences, or even objective differences that make lens B better suited to task X than lens C is to task Z, it's this nonsense that modern lens design is inept and only older simple lenses can convey these properties he speaks of.

-m
Click to expand...
Right, yeah that assumption about older and simple trumps more complex newer designs makes little sense to me. I don't have an extensive collection but for example my 24-70mm 2.8 Nikkor is a long way ahead in every department of the 28-105 and 35-70, and an 80-200 F2.8 while good is not in the league of the 70-200 (looking at zooms rather than primes).

Thanks for this post and your earlier one, it's an interesting discussion.
 
Not surprised by all the backlash OP has got from the forum members. I started a similar talk about "flatness" and lack of "3D Pop" I was observing as a recent AF-S user and got roasted ad nauseam. no biggie, i got thick skin and the thread did reveal that blog post which has been an eye opener as far as I'm concerned. I was looking in all the wrong places for what I was missing. Wasn't the sensor, lens sharpness, contrast or other common attribute.. So I followed that guy's lead and hunted down some old AF-D equivalent primes and what do you know... that 3D depth i was urging for was instantly back. So I'm a believer. These high element, plastic-fantastic, cheaper glass AF-S lenses although performance wise superior, don't really hold a candle to a few of the old high quality low element AF-D's as far micro-contrast or whatever you want to call it. I did the test and knew what to look for and results was night & day. crystal clear. Of course I expect 90% backlash "pics or it didn't happen" "heresy" "it's all about the skills not the equipment" etc... but I truly believe that blogger is right about now being sort of a dark age for lens lovers of 3D depth in IQ. the upside though is that AF-D lens are pretty cheap nowadays, personally I plan on stocking up.. truth is I actually hope nobody buy's into this so second hand prices don't suddenly increase ;-) -putting flame suit on-
 
Last edited:
analogue said:
Not surprised by all the backlash OP has got from the forum members. I started a similar talk about "flatness" and lack of "3D Pop" I was observing as a recent AF-S user and got roasted ad nauseam. no biggie, i got thick skin and the thread did reveal that blog post which has been an eye opener as far as I'm concerned. I was looking in all the wrong places for what I was missing. Wasn't the sensor, lens sharpness, contrast or other common attribute.. So I followed that guy's lead and hunted down some old AF-D equivalent primes and what do you know... that 3D depth i was urging for was instantly back. So I'm a believer. These high element, plastic-fantastic, cheaper glass AF-S lenses although performance wise superior, don't really hold a candle to a few of the old high quality low element AF-D's as far micro-contrast or whatever you want to call it. I did the test and knew what to look for and results was night & day. crystal clear. Of course I expect 90% backlash "pics or it didn't happen" "heresy" "it's all about the skills not the equipment" etc... but I truly believe that blogger is right about now being sort of a dark age for lens lovers of 3D depth in IQ. the upside though is that AF-D lens are pretty cheap nowadays, personally I plan on stocking up.. truth is I actually hope nobody buy's into this so second hand prices don't suddenly increase ;-) -putting flame suit on-
Click to expand...
So, you obviously have no issue with showing some comparison images that show this?
 
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