Lenses

[sharksnacks]

Who makes the best lenses? Is it more important to invest in a company with the best lenses, or the best cameras?

 

[ARShutterbug]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_AG#Camera_lenses

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug

 

[Richard Weisgrau]

In the era of film the answer would have been the best lenses because technical quality was determined by optics and by film selection. Digital has made the lens and the camera important because the built-in sensor is the film and the lens regulates the quality of light delivered to the sensor.

I shoot with Nikon D700 full frame bodies and Nikkor lenses. I have been gradually replacing my legacy D glass with new G lenses because the D lenses were designed for film, and those designs are not usually the best for digital because the light receiving angle of film is much wider than that for a digital sensor. On digital, the best lenses (meaning the really good lenses) are designed for digital. That is what motivated Olympus to stop design its E series of gear that is all digital in design. Canon and Nikon stayed hybrid but have gradually been replacing their film lenses with digital designs, which of course cost more. Quality has its price.

--
Richard Weisgrau
http://www.weisgrau.com
Author of
The Real Business of Photography
The Photographer's Guide to Negotiating
Selling Your Photography
Licensing Photography

 

[hotdog321]

I have seen people mention "digital" lenses as opposed to "film" lenses. I don't understand the difference.

If I own a full frame digital camera, how is that different optically than a 35mm film camera? Both "sensors" are 35mm. You mention the light receiving angle of film vs. digital. Aren't they the same for both cameras? Exactly how is a "digital" lens better than a "film" lens on a full-frame camera?

This is not a flame but a genuine request for information.

 

[JulesJ]

A lens is part of a camera. When you buy a new car do you go for the best car manuafurer? Or perhaps by the company that makes the glass in the windows. or perhaps you have a thing about the battery. perhaps thinking about this will answer your question.
jules

Who makes the best lenses? Is it more important to invest in a company with the best lenses, or the best cameras?

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[BAK]

There's no best lenses and no best cameras, just like there's no best chicken recipe and no best automobile.

It all depends on what you want to do, and how much your budget is.

And what your end result is -- a 8x10 print? A 20x30 inch print? A 42 inch HD television screen on the other side of the room?

If your demands are in the middle ranges, you are better served, generally and if you want to work at it, having sevral lenses providing a range of options, instead of one very expensie lens that narrows what you can do,but might have some higher score in a test in a lab.

Some people think Zeiss make the best lenses, but many/mosgt Zeiss lenses do not autofocus, putting them far down the "best" scale for lots of action photographers.

Same for Leic, I believe.

Lens features affect whether someone thinks a lens is among the best. For instance,how close does it focus? Or, using the 24-70 lenses as examples, does it have stabilization? No? Then a 17-50 with stabilization is better, but only up to 50mm.

And so on.

For beginners, the lowest ranked camera model from any manufacturer is a great camera. And any lens made by a well known camera maker, used properly, will yield excellent 8x10 prints and fill a computer monitor beautifully.

BAK

 

[BAK]

about what makes a "digital" lens has to do with internal coating of the lens elements.

With film, the surface is dull rather than glossy. When the shutter is open and light hits the film, there's very little reflection.

With digital, there's glass in front of the sensor, and whent he shutter is open, light hiots the glass, and bounces back, inside the lens, causing reflections and flare.

By putting additional anti-reflections coatings in lenses, this bouncing around is minimized.

How real this problem is, is another issue. I've never noticed problems with my "film" lens.

Another difference has to do with how much the lens "sees" Some of the lens makers identify their lenses designed for the APS-C sized sensors as "digital" lenses, because the circle of light they transmit into the camera is too small for 35mm film cameras.

Canons EF-S lenses could be considered digital lenses, becaue they will not work on Canon film cameras -- but they won't work on some Canon larger-sensor digital cameras either, making things confusing.

Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and even Nikon have ":digital" lenses for the smaller sensors.

As for the "aiming" on the light to hit the sensors straight on, rather than on an angle, I leave this to the folks more technical than I.

It's really hard to compare whether any new design intended to cope with the angle actually makes much difference, because the newst lenses also have different types of glass, different designs, etc., so improvements can come from a variety of "newness" in the latest models.

Hope this helps.

BAK

 

[Ron Kruger]

It took me a long time to come to the opinion that the glass is where it's at, and that too much emphasis is put on bodies, bells and whistles, especially where DSLRs are concerned. It took me even longer to realize all the advantages of primes, especially as they relate to shooting "style."
The body gets you there, but it is the eye (lens) that sees.

Lenses are, indeed, a part of the equipment, but a much more important part than is generally considered.

I believe excellent, even outstanding, lenses exist within each brand, but that some companies put more into lens perfection, while others put more into making, marketing and advertising bodies, because that's where general interest centers and more frequent purchases occur. They market to the masses.

Zeiss is one company that concentrates their entire focus upon lenses. Larger format manufacturers built their reputations upon their lenses.

I believe, because of the cropped sensors, that in general lenses designed specifically for DSLRs are better for that format, but I'm not convinced the same is true for FF and think this is a good question.
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger

 

[Skipper494]

For what purpose? Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, Topcor, Zunow (bet you haven't heard of that one, the first company to exceed F1); Cook, Troughton and Sims; Jarrell-Ashe. There are many.

 

[hotdog321]

Thanks, BAK! That does help. It sounds like the optical difference is trivial for full frame digital vs. 35mm film. I could understand the difference for a cropped sensor camera.

I've never had a problem, but I haven't purchased any of the latest lenses; been happy with my pricey "old" glass! Seems to have good multicoating on all elements already.

I might try posting over at the Canon lens forum to see if there is any other input. Thanks again.

 

[Rakumi]

What adds to the complexity is that sometime lenses designed for FF perform better on the crop than they do on the FF body. Because they cut out the edge performance of the lens and just get the sweet center of the lens which in some lenses perform better. Hmmmm
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

 

[hotdog321]

Sure. That's why telephoto optics are generally simpler and cheaper than wide angle optics. The corners are are always critical, and generally the first to get knocked out of alignment. A cropped sensor camera is much less critical because it tries to turn every lens into a telephoto.

 

[Ron Kruger]

What adds to the complexity is that sometime lenses designed for FF perform better on the crop than they do on the FF body. Because they cut out the edge performance of the lens and just get the sweet center of the lens which in some lenses perform better. Hmmmm
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

This is something I've always thought. If an old lens is tack sharp in the center, but a little soft on the edges, as many 35mm/FF lenses are, they should actually preform better on cropped sensors, because those soft edges would be outside the image coverage. Right?
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger

 

[nzav]

I shoot with Nikon D700 full frame bodies and Nikkor lenses. I have been gradually replacing my legacy D glass with new G lenses because the D lenses were designed for film, and those designs are not usually the best for digital because the light receiving angle of film is much wider than that for a digital sensor. On digital, the best lenses (meaning the really good lenses) are designed for digital. That is what motivated Olympus to stop design its E series of gear that is all digital in design. Canon and Nikon stayed hybrid but have gradually been replacing their film lenses with digital designs, which of course cost more. Quality has its price.

Richard,

Your comment sums up the difference between lenses designed for film & digital - but it does not go far enough...

Film has the most sensitivity at its surface and has always been thought of as a flat 2-dimensional sensor. A digital sensor composed of millions of photosites (incorrectly called "pixels"), has a 3-dimensional aspect in sensitivity.

Photosites are like microscopic wells that get filled with light and respond with an analog voltage signal (that's right, the data is not digital at this stage). Light coming down into the photosite well in a straight line from the center of the lens gives the maximum voltage signal. The more the light ray diverges from the center, the less response you get from the photosite.

Think of it as holding a water hose straight over a bucket compared to one spraying into a bucket from the side. Obviously the side spray will take longer to fill the bucket because a lot of the water sprays past it hitting the side.

While the divergence of light rays from the back of a lens had a small impact on film's relatively flat sensitised layer's response to the light, the well structure of a digital sensor made that impact quite obvious. It was much easier to keep the sensors' edge limits closer to the center (i.e. smaller sensors) to solve this problem than to reformulate the optics to provide more parallel (and perpendicular to the sensor) light rays. Some manufacturers eventually designed special lenses with a smaller image circle to cover the digital sensors more evenly (like Olympus' 4/3 or Nikon's DX series), but photographers wanted their cameras with full 35mm sensors and the search for solutions continued.

Up until the Leica M8 was released, engineers said a digital rangefinder Leica was technically "impossible" due to the proximity of the focal plane (sensor) to the rear of the lens, which is much shorter than in an SLR. The rangefinder lenses would have light striking the sensor at such extreme angles toward the edges, that they could not compensate for it with the availble Leica lenses. Leica and Kodak worked out a sensor with gradually offset lenses over the photosites that directed the light striking them down into the photosite "buckets."

Of course, we now have the FF Leica M9, in addition to Canon, Nikon, and Sony FF DSLRs.

 

[chuxter]

Film has the most sensitivity at its surface and has always been thought of as a flat 2-dimensional sensor. A digital sensor composed of millions of photosites (incorrectly called "pixels"), has a 3-dimensional aspect in sensitivity.

Photosites are like microscopic wells that get filled with light and respond with an analog voltage signal (that's right, the data is not digital at this stage). Light coming down into the photosite well in a straight line from the center of the lens gives the maximum voltage signal. The more the light ray diverges from the center, the less response you get from the photosite.

Think of it as holding a water hose straight over a bucket compared to one spraying into a bucket from the side. Obviously the side spray will take longer to fill the bucket because a lot of the water sprays past it hitting the side.

In addition to the above, adding a micro-lens array above the photosites further constrains the acceptance angle. Even if the micro-lenses are offset at the edges, the acceptance angle is the same...just pointed in a different direction.

While the divergence of light rays from the back of a lens had a small impact on film's relatively flat sensitised layer's response to the light, the well structure of a digital sensor made that impact quite obvious. It was much easier to keep the sensors' edge limits closer to the center (i.e. smaller sensors) to solve this problem than to reformulate the optics to provide more parallel (and perpendicular to the sensor) light rays. Some manufacturers eventually designed special lenses with a smaller image circle to cover the digital sensors more evenly (like Olympus' 4/3 or Nikon's DX series), but photographers wanted their cameras with full 35mm sensors and the search for solutions continued.

Up until the Leica M8 was released, engineers said a digital rangefinder Leica was technically "impossible" due to the proximity of the focal plane (sensor) to the rear of the lens, which is much shorter than in an SLR. The rangefinder lenses would have light striking the sensor at such extreme angles toward the edges, that they could not compensate for it with the availble Leica lenses. Leica and Kodak worked out a sensor with gradually offset lenses over the photosites that directed the light striking them down into the photosite "buckets."

Zeiss and Sony conspired to produce the R1 a full year before the M8. The R1 had the back lens element about 1.5mm from the sensor. Go read reviews about how well it worked.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams that stuff is made of..."

 

[nzav]

In addition to the above, adding a micro-lens array above the photosites further constrains the acceptance angle. Even if the micro-lenses are offset at the edges, the acceptance angle is the same...just pointed in a different direction.

The purpose of the offset microlenses is not to constrain the acceptance angle, but to redirect the diverging light rays down into the photosite wells, but I think we are saying the same thing here...

It Leica and Kodak's breakthrough in sensor design that enabled acceptable response to those light rays, and what made it happen for digital rangefinder cameras having interchangeable lenses and sensors large enough for pro shooters.

Zeiss and Sony conspired to produce the R1 a full year before the M8. The R1 had the back lens element about 1.5mm from the sensor. Go read reviews about how well it worked.

You are forgetting some very important differences between Leica's M8 and Sony's R1. The R1 has a smaller 21.5 x 14.4 mm CMOS sensor than the M8's 27 x 18 CCD (smaller image circle is easier to correct for diverging light rays), and most important, the Zeiss lens is dedicated to that sensor and NOT interchangeable! I am not belittling the Zeiss lens by any means - it is a great lens as are all the Zeiss lenses I have ever used, but comparing the R1 (a high-end P&S) to a true interchangeable-lens rangefinder is comparing apples to oranges...

 

[Richard Katris]

the 50 mm Nikkor either 1.8 or 14. original film lens had a known problem with the Fuji S1 and S2 cameras....may or may not have also applied to other digital models with reflection spots in the images...been awhile since I had this problem.... I think NIkon did redesign and re-release the lens to fix this....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[chuxter]

In addition to the above, adding a micro-lens array above the photosites further constrains the acceptance angle. Even if the micro-lenses are offset at the edges, the acceptance angle is the same...just pointed in a different direction.

The purpose of the offset microlenses is not to constrain the acceptance angle, but to redirect the diverging light rays down into the photosite wells, but I think we are saying the same thing here...

Yes...micro-lenses do both things. One is why they were added and the other is an unavoidable consequence.

It Leica and Kodak's breakthrough in sensor design that enabled acceptable response to those light rays, and what made it happen for digital rangefinder cameras having interchangeable lenses and sensors large enough for pro shooters.

Zeiss and Sony conspired to produce the R1 a full year before the M8. The R1 had the back lens element about 1.5mm from the sensor. Go read reviews about how well it worked.

You are forgetting some very important differences between Leica's M8 and Sony's R1. The R1 has a smaller 21.5 x 14.4 mm CMOS sensor than the M8's 27 x 18 CCD (smaller image circle is easier to correct for diverging light rays), and most important, the Zeiss lens is dedicated to that sensor and NOT interchangeable! I am not belittling the Zeiss lens by any means - it is a great lens as are all the Zeiss lenses I have ever used, but comparing the R1 (a high-end P&S) to a true interchangeable-lens rangefinder is comparing apples to oranges...

I wasn't comparing them, just showing that it's possible to make a good lens that sits very close to the sensor w/o optical problems.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams that stuff is made of..."