[Lowell Goudge]

I think we all know that there have been technical advances in lens design, but it's just as obvious that newer lenses will not necessarily give you a better picture.

this has been the issue all along equipment does not make the photo, photographers do

Sharpness is easy to measure, but other qualities that a lens can provide are much more difficult to quantify, and it is these qualities that can make, or break the impact of a photo.

although a lot of other things like contrast at least in relative terms, lateral CA, vignetting, color drift, etc, can be measured quite easily, there is no mathematical definition for bokeh that I know of (although there are some who are trying) or other out of focus rendering

Regarding quality, it's very presumptuous to think that advancements in lens construction will be used for betterment of the image a lens produces. Lenses are built to generate the company a profit, and to make them affordable, their creation must be as affordable as possible. Advancement in lens design can decrease the manufacturing cost of a lens while degrading quality. Some new lenses *are* better, but many, if not most, won't be.

how true it is. Just consider what a lens cost perhaps in 1980. My series 1 70-210F3.5 cost something like $350 cdn retail yet today I can get a tamron 70-200F2.8 for what?, $799? that is only double, but inflation (if I look at my house price now vs then suggests I should pay something closer to $2000. so I wholly agree, the advances have largely gone into cost reductions transferred in a large proportion to the consumer. If not, and the manufacturer's have kept more than their share, then the old lenses really are worth their weight in gold

The other issue is the automation of the equipment. Auto focus, auto aperture, flare control, etc etc. Are you controlling the result of your photo or is the camera? Most enthusiasts here will take some time to think about what it is that they are doing, but many growing up with automation simply don't.

i disagree, not with the sentiment but the lack of strength in it. My view is that most who have entered in the automated era DEMANDnothing short of perfection, regardless of skill level or shooting conditions, with absolutely no realization of how much easier it is today to produce a technically competent photo compared to 30 years ago when I started

I agree that advancements have made it much easier to get a good photo, but it's also just as easy to plateau as a photographer. If one relies on the camera to think for them, what aperture to use, where to autofocus, they are chained to the limitations of the technology. You have to go out of your way to override the settings of the camera, instead of just using different settings as photographers did in the past. If you use new lenses because old ones are problematic for you to use, then you might have a bigger problem than lenses.

This is the argument also used against computer interfaces, all the advances have led to every one rising to the minimum level of competence, and remaining there.

[iangreenhalgh]

It's all about the character of the rendering for me, and my old lenses like this 1952 CZJ Biotar T 2/58 have wonderful character:



Oh, and build quality too, this lens is 60 years old and still works like new, it's solid metal and will easily last another 60 years. Lenses of today are like cheap plastic toys.

[Katier]

Found my missing lenses :-)

My m42, is an underused prinzflex f2.8 35mm.. going to do some test shots comparing it with a couple of other lenses, see how she fares :-)

[mano]

i disagree, not with the sentiment but the lack of strength in it. My view is that most who have entered in the automated era DEMANDnothing short of perfection, regardless of skill level or shooting conditions, with absolutely no realization of how much easier it is today to produce a technically competent photo compared to 30 years ago when I started This is the argument also used against computer interfaces, all the advances have led to every one rising to the minimum level of competence, and remaining there.

Now that reminds me of a friend of mine who originally bought a Pentax when he saw the pictures I produced with my K200 and soon started complaining about the AF choosing the wrong objects, SR not working whenever he got a blurred image etc. He later switched to Canon because he had seen that Canon's SR was able to produce a sharp picture even when being swirled around your head on some Youtube video... since he got the new camera he is mostly silent concerning the topic, I really wonder why.

Your post made think about his first SLR being a Canon EOS while I started with grandpa's old Praktica. Maybe that explains our different approaches to photography?

[fuent104]

If you use new lenses because old ones are problematic for you to use, then you might have a bigger problem than lenses.

I couldn't agree more. I understand why people, on some occasions, want to use autofocus. There are also many occasions where i don't think it's the best choice. However....

For me, not having an "A" setting for aperture is such a small matter, that I would consider it only the slightest of inconveniences. I have seen plenty of posts in which a person says they wouldn't want a lens because it doesn't have an "A" setting. I feel like they are saying this simply because they haven't tried using such lenses. I can't imagine people using such lenses and deciding that they were so difficult to use that they would rather not own the lens.

I could be wrong, obviously.

[iangreenhalgh]

I don't think you're wrong fuent, I agree with you.

I'd go further and say that using a manual lens and having to select the aperture and shutter speed and focus manually makes you a better shooter. I actually like the way all-manual slows me down and makes me have to think about what I'm doing, instead of just pointing and shooting and letting the camera/lens make decisions for me.

Another thing, I've never had anyone who bought one of my pictures ask me what lens or camera I used to make it, never, I do recall being asked once if I had used film or digital for a BW picture I had processed to have a vintage look.

[lytrytyr]

I have seen plenty of posts in which a person says they wouldn't want a lens because it doesn't have an "A" setting. I feel like they are saying this simply because they haven't tried using such lenses. I can't imagine people using such lenses and deciding that they were so difficult to use that they would rather not own the lens.

I have used AF lenses (with the A setting, of course), MF lenses with the A setting,
and MF lenses with only manual aperture control (on the crippled K-mount).

With digital, where it is easy to correct minor exposure deviations in post,
I do prefer A lenses for fast action, rather than having to keep hitting the green button.

However, I also actually prefer MF for fast action.

Although my LX had exposure automation (the equivalent of an Av mode),
when I was predominantly shooting slide film that has to be exposed precisely,
I had more success setting the exposure manually.

[SteveM]

I'd like to clarify that I don't think that somehow using manual or auto settings somehow reflect on the photographer. I tried to infer that when I indicated that the folks on the forum here would most likely have enough interest to understand exposure and how to set settings on their camera and lenses. One could argue that using the green button is in fact a form of automation. Once the settings are properly selected (manually or otherwise) I don't see the automation of this task being the driving force behind better IQ. Therefore, an A setting or AF has no bearing on IQ. Modern lenses do not necessarily = better IQ. Choosing a lens from pixel peeping measurements doesn't always result in photos that will be more pleasing to the eye.

[fuent104]

One could argue that using the green button is in fact a form of automation.

I would absolutely argue that using the green button is a form of automation, and an easy one at that. For this reason, I can't see the "A" setting as a dealbreaker.

[iangreenhalgh]

Modern lenses do not necessarily = better IQ.

I'd contend that a lot of modern lenses have poor IQ compared to a good old lens that is available for a mere fraction of the price.

One example, I got to play with a Canon EF 17-40 L a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty mediocre, at the 17mm end it couldn't compete with my Tokina RMC 3.5/17 and at the 40mm end it was nowhere near as good as my Konica Hexanon 1.8/40, both of which are readily available for a tiny fraction of what that L lens costs. They have much better build quality too and will still be giving sterling service when that L lens has ceased to function properly.

[creampuff]

I'd contend that a lot of modern lenses have poor IQ compared to a good old lens that is available for a mere fraction of the price.

One example, I got to play with a Canon EF 17-40 L a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty mediocre, at the 17mm end it couldn't compete with my Tokina RMC 3.5/17 and at the 40mm end it was nowhere near as good as my Konica Hexanon 1.8/40, both of which are readily available for a tiny fraction of what that L lens costs. They have much better build quality too and will still be giving sterling service when that L lens has ceased to function properly.

Pointless to compare a zoom lens with prime lenses whether new or not. The point is there will always be a difference in build quality between an AF lens and a manual only lens, but build quality is no indication of optical performance. There are old lenses that have impeccable build quality but are optically crap, just as there are modern lenses that are plastic which deliver stunning image quality, so what does build quality relate to optical quality? Nothing.

What camera were you using with the Tokina and Konica lenses? I would also argue that saying one lens is better than another should be in the context of comparisons using the same camera system. You mean you managed to use a Hexanon mount on a Canon? Interesting...

[lytrytyr]

I would absolutely argue that using the green button is a form of automation, and an easy one at that. For this reason, I can't see the "A" setting as a dealbreaker.

For static photography, I would agree with you.
But for fast action under rapidly changing light conditions,
like an animal running over ground with patchy shadows,
the green button is too slow.

[iangreenhalgh]

I'm sorry, your post makes no sense to me.

The point is there will always be a difference in build quality between an AF lens and a manual only lens,

I don't understand that statement. There is no reason for an AF lens to be of lesser quality.

I used the Tokina and Konica on a NEX-3. Camera system makes no difference when you have hundreds if not thousands of pictures from the lenses on both film and digital to base your evaluation on. The 17-40 L I used on a 7D and I also looked at a few dozen images the owner had shot with it on the 7D and a couple of other bodies, one was a 60D, I forget the others.

[lytrytyr]

so what does build quality relate to optical quality? Nothing.

Unless the poor build quality leads to decentering.

[lytrytyr]

There is no reason for an AF lens to be of lesser quality.

AF may require a lighter assembly to be moved when focusing,
which may lead the designers to cut weight and thereby reduce the quality.