Lens quality vs size

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, SMAL said:

I don´t think you could call the FLE ASPH big and look wise the old pre ASPH are not pleasant imo. They are just too soft.

Matter of tastes, others could say the asph is too tall and too clinical

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

Rule of thumb: A good lens designer makes the same lens with less lens elements, smaller, and cheaper, but with better optical properties, than a poorer lens designer.

And Leica M lenses are in general more compact than other lenses simply because (a) they dont offer autofocus and (b) they are made for rangefinder, so theres extra motivation to keep the lens as compact as possible.

The issue is very obvious when you look at Nikon F lenses: there are three versions of many lenses, one old "AI" (auto indexed) manual focus only, one AF (autofocus) thats screwdrive autofocus (motor is in the camera), and one AF-S (auto focus - silent) with the motor in the lens.

And with each of these variants, the lens size grows very substantly. The additional functionality simply needs a lot of space.

Probably the same comparison also works with Pentax K lenses.

[jaeger]

On 3/2/2019 at 6:08 AM, Lanark said:

He makes some good points about the larger lenses collecting more light due to 'basic physics' 

That's why we need T stops instead of F stops to stop the cheating.

[Jeff S]

16 minutes ago, jaeger said:

That's why we need T stops instead of F stops to stop the cheating.

The linked video provides a good explanation of the difference... and several reasons why photographers don’t complain, but cinematographers do...

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/30/f-stops-vs-t-stops-difference-explained-plain-english/

Jeff

[mmradman]

1 hour ago, LichtUndDunkelheit said:

Rule of thumb: A good lens designer makes the same lens with less lens elements, smaller, and cheaper, but with better optical properties, than a poorer lens designer.

And Leica M lenses are in general more compact than other lenses simply because (a) they dont offer autofocus and (b) they are made for rangefinder, so theres extra motivation to keep the lens as compact as possible.

The issue is very obvious when you look at Nikon F lenses: there are three versions of many lenses, one old "AI" (auto indexed) manual focus only, one AF (autofocus) thats screwdrive autofocus (motor is in the camera), and one AF-S (auto focus - silent) with the motor in the lens.

And with each of these variants, the lens size grows very substantly. The additional functionality simply needs a lot of space.

Probably the same comparison also works with Pentax K lenses.

The way you describe rule of thumb is how we see it but industry works slightly differently, i think.  There is no such thing as poor(er) or inferior design by intent, lens or otherwise, people design based on circumstances, available raw materials and previous experience. Kalahari Bushman's weapons are primitive by the standard of automatic rifle however equally lethal for intended target.  

All things equal or near equal, good example comparing Zeiss vs Leica, designs are governed by corporate culture and price point product is designed to sell.  Leica caters for customers for whom price is no object while minimising compromising other parameters, particularly minuscule M lenses.  There must be triangle where good design is compromise between cost, quality and size.  Typical non Leica equivalent is small fraction of the price of the Leica.

[SMAL]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb lct:

Matter of tastes, others could say the asph is too tall and too clinical

Don´t get me wrong. I love me some character,  but the Lux 35/1.4 pre asph are so soft at f1.4 that you cant even shoot far away subjects properly. Close up it´s okay. I own a Summicron rigid and will add a 35/2 V4 exactly for the reasons of rendering, but these are usable lenses at the open aperture. I think the the 35 pre asph is one of the worst lenses leica made, honestly. Maybe it´s matter of taste. I mean there are people liking the results of the tambar lens.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

1 hour ago, SMAL said:

Maybe it´s matter of taste. I mean there are people liking the results of the tambar lens.

Exactly, serious. Some people like truly yours are not interested in perfection at all. So boring... I've got all those things more or less.. Did i say boring? Perhaps because i'm not young anymore and i prefer character in people as well. i humbly leave perfection to others .

[evikne]

I feel pulled in two directions. I love the classic lenses from the Mandler era, but only when they "show off their best side". I hate glow and other weaknesses that may appear in more challenging light conditions. On the other side, I think too much perfection is boring. The good thing about Karbe lenses is that despite the perfection, they still have a smoothness and "organic touch" that make them not too clinical.

[pico]

2 minutes ago, evikne said:

I feel pulled in two directions. I love the classic lenses from the Mandler era, but only when they "show off their best side". I hate glow and other weaknesses that may appear in more challenging light conditions. On the other side, I think too much perfection is boring. The good thing about Karbe lenses is that despite the perfection, they still have a smoothness and "organic touch" that make them not too clinical.

Ambivalence is incurable. So is subjectivity.  Glow requires evidence - could you show us by example? Too much perfection, boring, also unbearable textual terms. Organic touch - lenses grown in a garden?

 

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

15 hours ago, lct said:

 

[...] Some people like truly yours are not interested in perfection at all.  [...]

Err ... Soft focus lenses are of course not about "being not perfect" at all.

Instead they have a very specific effect that you may like or not like, but its not about a less than ideal lens at all.

Otherwise, why would so many people, such as myself, look for the perfect soft focus lens ?

 

[frame-it]

On 3/2/2019 at 9:08 PM, Lanark said:

I just watched this video by Tony Northrup       about full frame vs smaller lenses.

He makes some good points about the larger lenses collecting more light due to 'basic physics'

But this also has me wondering about M series lenses which traditionally have very good quality ratings despite their small size - where is the trade off?

I feel like I am missing something in the way that lens size applies to a rangefinder?

 

 

 

 

Tony Northrup...

 

Vomit.

 

 

 

[pgk]

19 hours ago, LichtUndDunkelheit said:

Rule of thumb: A good lens designer makes the same lens with less lens elements, smaller, and cheaper, but with better optical properties, than a poorer lens designer.

Lens designers are also given design briefs and degrees of freedom within which to work. So Mandler's 35/1.4 was as good as it could be given the glass constraints of the day (late 1950s) but it was expensive. I'm not so sure that there are actually many 'poor' lens designers today as you can't really sell anything other than 'good' lenses in today's market, unless they are 'poor' for a good reason that is. Lens designs are now all computer assisted and any competent designer should produce a reasonable design. The more problematic and costly bit is production and testing. Both are crucial to keeping costs down and testing is expensive. Which may well explain variation in cheaper lenses.

[Photon42]

18 hours ago, evikne said:

I feel pulled in two directions. I love the classic lenses from the Mandler era, but only when they "show off their best side". I hate glow and other weaknesses that may appear in more challenging light conditions. On the other side, I think too much perfection is boring. The good thing about Karbe lenses is that despite the perfection, they still have a smoothness and "organic touch" that make them not too clinical.

 

18 hours ago, pico said:

Ambivalence is incurable. So is subjectivity.  Glow requires evidence - could you show us by example? Too much perfection, boring, also unbearable textual terms. Organic touch - lenses grown in a garden?

 

Organic just means no pesticides, no dog testing 😎 Sounds like they are on the right track 😜. Subjectively.

[evikne]

12 minutes ago, Photon42 said:

 

Organic just means no pesticides, no dog testing 😎 Sounds like they are on the right track 😜. Subjectively.

Maybe "natural" or "living" are better words. But I guess you understand what I meant. 😉

[willeica]

Full frame is 'digi-babble'. Small and large are also lens qualities that some people either like or they don't. Image perfection lies in the eye of the beholder. And, as my late father would say, that is the 'holy all' of it.

William

[Lanark]

 

[M11 for me]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Lanark:

 

You are wrong here with this film. This is not about ISO but about lenses 🤢

And by the way Tony was just misunderstood and many others take this as the opportunity to make their own little YouTube appearance. So sad. But again: What does this have to do with the theme?

Edited March 6, 2019 by Alex U.

[Ko.Fe.]

These days small size if often the quality. 

28 2.8 III is huge, 28 2.8 ASPH is small.

But for some ZM lenses are small. Go figure...

Same for quality. I read many times how sharp CV lenses are, but some of those sharp lenses are flat in rendering.

Or take Nokton 35 1.4. I like this lens for affordable quality and small size, but  at f1.4 is has weird bokeh and barrel distortions.

What is better, this or Lux to be soft at f1.4? 

Or new Color Skopar 35 f2. Aspherical, plus something else. Tiny and weird OOF. 

What is better, this or old Cron?

I have tried all classic Crons in 50mm, but I prefer Jupter-3. Because it is fast, small even for f2 lens and it is sharp enough for me.

Old RF lenses on digital M? Some are not good, some are different from modern lenses and I can't fail them in IQ, either.

Reviews? How many days, months, how many pictures it took with each lens? Reviews I consider as valuable starts with - have this lens since...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M