Lens Clarity.. Am I imagining???

[d30gaijin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also posted this on the DP Review Forums.  I repost it here because I am not at all sure where it belongs with regards to the discussion I hope for.  That discussion would be about vintage simple lens designs.  I refer to the simplest lens designs, such as the Trioplan, Cooke triplets, etc.  I have no doubt your high dollar Summicron, APO's, ASPH's are vastly superior.  No argument there so likely this discussion may not be for you.

Moderator:  If You feel this is inappropriate please delete it.  I post this only in the interest of furthering discussion about something I noticed with regards to simple vintage lenses that I am not seeing in far more expensive lenses.  Something I see but cannot adequately (quantifiably or qualitatively) describe.

I want to discuss something I have noticed about simple optical formula vintage lenses such as Tessars, Troiplans, some Domiplans, etc.

I have been a photography hobbiest for a long time, more than 50 years.  In that time I have built up a rather substantial camera lens collection.  That collection includes some of the newest from Sony (GM lenses), Leica, Voightlander (new Voigtlnder), Zeiss (old and new Zeiss), Meyer Optic (old and new), Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Sigma, Samsung, and multiples of the current Chinese lens makers.

What I enjoy of late is trying older/vintage lenses on new digital camera.  Something I have noticed from all of what I've been doing with various older, very simple lens designs, I mean 3, 4 and 5 element lens designs, is they seem to give/provide, a clarity in the central 50 to 60% of the image circle that I do not see in much more expensive and very complex modern lens designs.  Modern designs typically provide a nicer over all image circle area but are simply not as sharp/have the clarity I see in the center of older simpler lens designs.  I am not at all sure how to describe it other than reference to clarity.  As an example:  I focus on the house at the end of my Cal-De-Sac.  That neighbor has two brass lamp fixture on either side of the garage door.  When I shoot it with my Sony A7c camera and Sony 35mm f/1.4GM lens, or my Leica 35mm Summicron, the whole image is very sharp.  No complaints.  I shoot it again with the same Sony A7c but with a vintage Zeiss 50mm f/2.8 Tessar or a vintage Meyer Optik simple 50mm f/2.9 Trioplan the central image is stunning.  The brass lamps seem to just sparkle in the simple lenses.  In the latest Sony & Leica lenses the images is certainly sharp, but lacks a sparkling clarity of the simpler older design lenses.  Again, no idea if that makes any sense at all.  It's just my observations.

And it is not unique to the older vintage lenses.  I see the same thing from my TT Artisan 100mm f/2.8 three element lens that is modeled after the vintage Meyer Optik 100mm f/2.8 Trioplan.  I also see it in my newest (current production) Meyer Optic 35mm f/2.8 II Trioplan.  Move beyond 60 to 80% of the image circle and the older lenses fall apart.  But that central area has an incredible beauty.  I don't want to call it a "glow" because that may infer a lack of sharpness/detail.  But it is a glow in respect to clarity... if that makes any sense at all.  The tiny brass frame of my neighbors light just simply stands out so much better in the central area of the much simpler lenses than it does in my most expensive modern lenses.

Am I full of it or maybe on to something photographers much older than me (and I am really old, like 3/4 century) already knew, or I thought they knew?  Damn!  That just hit me.  3/4ths of a Century and I made it this far and still going strong.  Will I see a full century? 😳. I have Leica lenses older than me... and I still use them.😎

Don

[250swb]

Would posting some comparison images help illustrate the point?

[nitroplait]

4 hours ago, d30gaijin said:

That neighbor has two brass lamp fixture on either side of the garage door.  When I shoot it with my Sony A7c camera and Sony 35mm f/1.4GM lens, or my Leica 35mm Summicron, the whole image is very sharp.  No complaints.  I shoot it again with the same Sony A7c but with a vintage Zeiss 50mm f/2.8 Tessar or a vintage Meyer Optik simple 50mm f/2.9 Trioplan the central image is stunning.  The brass lamps seem to just sparkle in the simple lenses.  In the latest Sony & Leica lenses the images is certainly sharp, but lacks a sparkling clarity of the simpler older design lenses.  Again, no idea if that makes any sense at all.  It's just my observations.

It is great that you have actual examples.

If you post those pictures, it will make the conversation much more concrete and less theoretical/hypothetical.

[jankap]

Just to answer something. What do you want: nice pictures or a copy of the real world? Without an example, it is difficult to help you.

[250swb]

Trying to describe the wonderful qualities of a vintage lens can be difficult without at the same time risk making it sound inferior. A lot of the words you'd use like 'glow' are open to misinterpretation unless you recognise it as something special. And 'lack of contrast' doesn't necessarily mean a lens only renders a flat image, it could be full of contrast but not micro contrast or contrast in the shadows or highlights. It's also difficult isolating a feature because 'glow' can be affected by overall contrast of the scene, sharpness, and bokeh. Modern lenses also tend to perform equally well in all sorts of light when vintage lenses can have a sweet spot. I guess if we could pin it down it would spoil the fun of hunting down and discovering a new lens.

[zeitz]

I do a lot of photography with telephoto lenses, sports and auto racing.  I have many of the classic telephotos - achromats, Cooke triplets, Steinheil triplets, modified Ernostars / Sonnars, etc.  On digital cameras the chromatic aberrations range from bad to really bad.  The modern telephotos with exotic glass are by far superior performers to the vintage lenses, at f-stops that weren't achievable with vintage designs.

There is one exception.  I like to take pictures of vintage cars in places that look like vintage locations with period equipment to get the old look.  These opportunities are very rare.

[f8low]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pictures or it didn’t happen 🙂

[pgk]

Older lenses tend to suffer from image field curvature. This is one of the main reasons why the centre is sharper than the edges. I have much older doublets which exhibit this even more markedly and which have substantial field curvature. However I have yet to find and older lens or a lens with an older (these days that probably means a spherical rather than aspherical design) which is as better than a current aspherical design. It may just be that there are areas of differing 'clarity' within one image which tend to make the centre appear better than in an image which has a more homongenous look throughout.

FWIW the Cooke triplet is thought to have been designed by Taylor in order to produce a better lens than a doublet whilst only increasing the number of elements by the minimum possible (contrast was reduced in uncoated lenses by increasing the number of glass/air interfaces and so these had to be kept to a minimum).

[oldwino]

Well there is something about a lens that is very sharp in the center, but less so (sometimes much less so) further out. My 1935 Summar is an example - the sharp center really stands out from the periphery and the effect is quite stunning. It pops.

As lenses got "better", and there was more clarity over more of the frame, this effect relies more on micro-contrast and how steep the falloff is between in-focus and out.

[d30gaijin]

23 hours ago, 250swb said:

Would posting some comparison images help illustrate the point?

That might be a problem, but I will try.  I tend to shoot lots of digital pics for my own comparisons, never thinking of discussing them, let alone posting them.  And then just as quickly I delete them figuring they would never mean anything to anyone. But since I have discussed them I will try to post some examples.  Most likely will have to retake some comparisons.  Not at all sure what I refer to will come across in those pics.

[simple.joy]

I find your observations interesting and I remember feeling the same way about a couple of lenses, albeit mostly limited to very specific instances.Unfortunately I don't have any examples of Leitz lenses or direct comparison shots between these simple lenses and more complex/modern designs, but I'll share a couple of sample shots if you don't mind and perhaps you'll be able to tell if what you describe is something similar than what I perceive or something completely different...

Here are two shots with a really simple Triplet, a Steinheil V-Cassarit 50/3.5:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Even though I've shot with some high-end industrial lenses, it's really rare that I've witnessed that kind of (perceived) sharpness and definition like here in the center on the wood texture. That lens is very hit or miss in this regard though, so I suspect it's highly dependent on magnification and lighting.

While I don't feel it's quite as sharp as the first one, the quick fade into complete softness (notice the lack of detail on the thin line in focus on the ground for example) seems to elevate the crispness of the center in a way a significantly higher resolution lens wouldn't be able to because of more distraction by another clearly defined area.

 

Some shots with Triplets from Agfa:

 

 

 

And finally some captures with what is likely some kind of 4/4 Dialyt design, a Steinheil Repro-Objektiv 80 mm f/4.5 which is severely affected by separation and thus lacking any sharpness apart from the center:

 

 

I'm curious if you perceive it in a similar way or if you're talking about something different overall.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, simple.joy said:

..... perhaps you'll be able to tell if what you describe is something similar than what I perceive or something completely different...

Here are two shots with a really simple Triplet, a Steinheil V-Cassarit 50/3.5

I'm curious if you perceive it in a similar way or if you're talking about something different overall.

Difficult. The Steinheil clearly has a diaphragm (three-bladed?) which produces a very characteristic'bokeh' which will also influence the transition from 'sharp and in-focus' to oof. I think all examples will show distinct field curvature. What I doubt very much is that the images are any sharper than those from more modern, flatter-field designs. To check you would need to take direct comparisin shots of the same subject in the same lighting , etc.. If you do I would anticipate that they will, if anything, show better central clarity although the transition to oof will be less distinct.

As an illustration of an older lens here is a test at ~1:1 from a mid-1890s TTH MAR (Medium Angle Rectilinear) lens of a printed card. The dot structure is resolved over the whole image (wide-open at ~f/11) but is a little better centrally. This is due to field curvature primarily I think. There is no 'pop' due to aperture and subject but the lens is surprisingly capable for its age and very usable. As faster lenses were created field curvature became a greater problem which led to more complex designs .....

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[simple.joy]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb pgk:

What I doubt very much is that the images are any sharper than those from more modern, flatter-field designs.

No disagreement there! Whenever I've tried direct comparisons with older lenses (apart from a couple of highly specialized ones at their intended magnification) the modern lenses were sharper, usually even in the center. But I think this whole topic is more about perceived sharpness. And in some instances more sharpness across the whole frame can indeed limit the effect of a very sharp central area in our perception. Same for chromatic aberations and lack of contrast, which can be detrimental, but also improve an image, depending on the look we want.

Take a look at this for example:

On the left is a 90 year old Zeiss lens, clearly not up to modern standards when it comes to sharpness, contrast and CA correction. However (in my personal perception) I vastly prefer it to the significantly more modern Nikon scanner lens, which is clearly better in all of these areas from a technical point of view. The CAs + low contrast help the Zeiss lens make that flower blend in and create a nice, soft look, which I wanted for this image.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

While different from the thing this topic is about, it's something similar which can help some older simpler designs in making (central) subjects stand out more, even though it's just because of our perception.

The 1890 lens you show delivers impressive results by the way. I've gotten some very impressive results from similarly old lenses as well, but as you've mentioned (f/11) these usually aren't the fast ones.

[pgk]

If you search you may well be able to find a pdf of a paper from Zeiss about 'bokeh' and the transition through DofF which can be (nuancedly at least) shifted by the lens design. This may well have more bearing on the perceived view of the image than its absolute technical 'clarity', 'sharpness' or however you want to define its ability to provide well defined central definition. Add in image field curvature, spherical aberration and more and the simple idea of how a lens images what it sees becomes more difficult. Lenses are complex things!

Perhaps I should add that I think matching a lens's characteristics to the subject, composition and lighting is something whichwe should probably make more of😀.

Edited October 13, 2023 by pgk

[d30gaijin]

On 10/12/2023 at 5:09 AM, jankap said:

Just to answer something. What do you want: nice pictures or a copy of the real world? Without an example, it is difficult to help you.

What do I want?  Obviously nothing you might have to offer, which seems to be nothing.  Go away. 

[250swb]

On 10/12/2023 at 12:09 PM, jankap said:

Just to answer something. What do you want: nice pictures or a copy of the real world? Without an example, it is difficult to help you.

A valid question that doesn't deserve a snarky reply. An old lens capable of making 'nice (close up) pictures' isn't necessarily one that you'd want to make landscape photographs with, old lenses are capable of having different traits to suit different subjects. Given there wasn't an entrance fee levied to enter this thread it's unfortunate that this 'ringmaster' is so narrow minded. Ask an open and rambling question and you'll get lots of replies, among which some may be asking for clarification.  

[willeica]

The answer to the OPs general question is that every lens has its own own characteristics and merits. Sometimes the perceived flaws in a lens can actually give what some of us might regard as 'character'. All a matter of taste really. I have used all sorts of lenses for photography, some dating back as far as the mid 19th Century and each has its merits. You just have to look at the work of any of the great 19th Century photographers to see the merits of those lenses and I can show some examples, if anyone is interested, of images I have taken with an aplanatic lens made in 1875. 

Staying with Leitz, I recently acquired some more 24mm and 42mm Mikro Summar lenses with various M39 and M40 mounts. The 42mm Mikro Summar is the lens which Barnack used on the Ur-Leica. He put it into a focus mount, of course, and I would like some day to have a look at how he achieved this, but the Ur-Leica is well hidden away from our gaze. I have used a Mikro Summar in the past on a Leica bellows and I got some very 'dreamy' effects. This time the 42mm Mikro Summar came with a non focussing mount called a 'Repro Summar', so I decided to use it on an M10 to photograph some of the last flowers of the season in my back garden. These are not up to the technical standard of the images posted above by simple.joy, but each one has a point on a very thin plane where it is sharp (or'sharpish'), fading away to what is now called 'bokeh' of some kind. A valid use of the lens for the purpose for which it was created but it won't be replacing my Summilux and Summicron lenses for general use.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

That said, I really love my non-mikro Summar lenses as they often have a 'character which my modern lenses lack. The 'sharp in the middle fading away to the edges' concept can work very well at times. My article, linked below, touches on various themes mentioned here. 

https://www.macfilos.com/2016/12/05/2016-12-1-leitz-summar-review-the-last-rose-of-summar/

William 

Edited October 14, 2023 by willeica

[simple.joy]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb willeica:

Staying with Leitz, I recently acquired some more 24mm and 42mm Mikro Summar lenses with various M39 and M40 mounts.

Excellent shots with beautiful light and tones! I also love a couple of Leitz lenses for their beautiful rendering, not really their sharpness compared to modern lenses. Here are some samples:

Leitz Voort 9.5 cm f/4 (enlarging lens)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Leitz Elmarit-Pro 150 mm f/2.8 (projection lens)

 

[spydrxx]

I've found that sometimes the beautiful rendering of older designed lenses misses the mark on central sharpness, in spite  of accurate focusing. It may sound like heresy, but I've found that a slight touch up in Topaz AI on the portion of the shot I want slightly sharpened does the job for me. I'm not above using a variety of tools to achieve the desired result.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear