Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-13-2013, 06:12 AM - 1 Like   #16
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It is amazing how many lens "experts" we have on here who have never taken a course in lens design
You know what cured me of audiophilia? Building my own tube amps. I still don't claim a great understanding of electronics, but I've had the physical experience at least.

To a degree, it is the same thing with nearly any 'quality' consumer product -- we tend to totemize them, invest their features with absolute significance, and then build hierarchies which (we imagine) translate to a hierarchy of human worth (or something like that)... Thus the 'experts' always pushing everyone to go for only the 'best', often the most expensive, gizmo. And the other streams: the 'smart buyers' going for the 'smart buy hidden gem'... We all know how that works.

In the end, aberrations can be as useful as their absence; most photographers don't mind edge softness wide open; not everyone needs a f/1.2 lens... It is what works for you and your photography that matters. Although, all that salt sprinkled on web reviews can leave one very thirsty when figuring out what lens to try out next...

09-13-2013, 06:17 AM   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
You know what cured me of audiophilia? Building my own tube amps. I still don't claim a great understanding of electronics, but I've had the physical experience at least.

To a degree, it is the same thing with nearly any 'quality' consumer product -- we tend to totemize them, invest their features with absolute significance, and then build hierarchies which (we imagine) translate to a hierarchy of human worth (or something like that)... Thus the 'experts' always pushing everyone to go for only the 'best', often the most expensive, gizmo. And the other streams: the 'smart buyers' going for the 'smart buy hidden gem'... We all know how that works.

In the end, aberrations can be as useful as their absence; most photographers don't mind edge softness wide open; not everyone needs a f/1.2 lens... It is what works for you and your photography that matters. Although, all that salt sprinkled on web reviews can leave one very thirsty when figuring out what lens to try out next...
Aberrations? Aberrations are completely predictable. The term itself is an aberration. Different colours of light have different wave lengths and refract at different angles. There's nothing remotely aberrant about it.

aberration: the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
09-13-2013, 06:31 AM   #18
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Joensuu (Finland)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,750
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It is amazing how many lens "experts" we have on here who have never taken a course in lens design. Who argue that they understand everything about lenses because they studied optical physics etc. As in many things , understanding the physics doesn't necessarily mean you understand the problems of turning out a practical application.

It leads to a lot hot air being blown around.
Sorry, no expert. Just stumbled with this. I did understand that lens design for imaging is less complicated than for most other fields.. But I guess there are variables that can not be quantified and compared (human perception, subjectivity, likes, etc). I could recommend you a few books though.
Regarding understanding the physics in les design.. Well Iīd be more interested in the physics, chimestry, technics and technology involved in manufacturing. Thatīs a hard one to find on books
09-13-2013, 06:31 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
LOL!

The variation article reminded me: When Minolta came out with their f/1.2 lens, it was sold as a kit with a body, where the two were adjusted to perform to the tolerance required for such a shallow DOF.

09-13-2013, 07:19 AM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
Sorry, no expert. Just stumbled with this. I did understand that lens design for imaging is less complicated than for most other fields.. But I guess there are variables that can not be quantified and compared (human perception, subjectivity, likes, etc). I could recommend you a few books though.
Regarding understanding the physics in les design.. Well Iīd be more interested in the physics, chimestry, technics and technology involved in manufacturing. Thatīs a hard one to find on books
If lens design for imaging was less complicate than most other fields, why doesn't every lens have the reputation of the 31 ltd? That's the kind of statement made by someone else looking in from the outside and saying "those lens designers don't know anything." And you're right, the ones who do know how complicated it is aren't talking. Never take it verbatim when a person from one discipline comments on what a more technical person is doing. Good engineers know, the first thing you do is talk to the technicians...bad engineers produce brilliant designs up in their offices, that aren't at all functional or in some cases even possible.

To those who say it's not complicated.. I'd say, OK then, show me your easy to design highly regarded lens. If it's not complicated, anyone should be able to do a great job. The proof that something is easy, is that you've done it. Before you've actually done it, all you're saying is "Those parameters with which I'm familiar are easy.. but there may be a lot of parameters with which I'm not familiar." And that really isn't worth a whole lot.
09-13-2013, 07:38 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
I love how Pixar films show specular highlights.
09-13-2013, 12:10 PM   #22
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Joensuu (Finland)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,750
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If lens design for imaging was less complicate than most other fields, why doesn't every lens have the reputation of the 31 ltd?
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
But I guess there are variables that can not be quantified and compared (human perception, subjectivity, likes, etc)
i.e. "Aesthetics" Aesthetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Good engineers know
...
Blah blah blah

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
To those who say it's not complicated.. I'd say, OK then, show me your easy to design highly regarded lens. If it's not complicated, anyone should be able to do a great job.
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
Iīd be more interested in the physics, chimestry, technics and technology involved in manufacturing.
(Why do I even care to answer you? You are just an smarty pants with no real knowledge as far as I can tell. For once, I am actually studying this thing)
09-13-2013, 12:48 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Good engineers know, the first thing you do is talk to the technicians...bad engineers produce brilliant designs up in their offices, that aren't at all functional or in some cases even possible.
Never heard anything so wrong in my life.

Good engines spend 20% of their time in the shop, watching non technical people make their designs, then they go back and rethink everything they are doing such that the design is so robust it can be built without a quality system or trained people. Bad engineers make designs which are not so much impossible but which require such precision that while in theory they work, they just cannot stand up to the variances in production which are reasonable.

09-13-2013, 02:43 PM   #24
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
I didn't want to tell any of you this, but I had a perfect lens in a 1977 Kodak Instamatix.

I never said anything before because I just knew it would draw outsize attention like a picture of Jesus appearing on a piece of toast.
09-15-2013, 03:47 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I didn't want to tell any of you this, but I had a perfect lens in a 1977 Kodak Instamatix.

I never said anything before because I just knew it would draw outsize attention like a picture of Jesus appearing on a piece of toast.
Sorry to say, that lens is well known as the only perfect lens, ever. This information was suppressed by the Leica-Zeiss-Nikon-Canon cabal, who ever since have worked to put Kodak out of business. They had to invent a replacement for film to do so.


09-21-2013, 06:29 AM   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Never heard anything so wrong in my life.

Good engines spend 20% of their time in the shop, watching non technical people make their designs, then they go back and rethink everything they are doing such that the design is so robust it can be built without a quality system or trained people. Bad engineers make designs which are not so much impossible but which require such precision that while in theory they work, they just cannot stand up to the variances in production which are reasonable.
I fail to see how what you said is much different from what I said. The point was, you can design great stuff you can't make, and bad engineers do it all the time. Maybe i should have said good engineers talk to the techies and then spend a lot of their time understanding what they've been told, but it's still a lot of time working with the technical staff and their input. You're just saying what I said, so that it sounds like you said it. Nice try.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People When there is no XBOX daacon Post Your Photos! 9 03-03-2012 07:56 AM
Genesis 1 if there is no God... JohnBee General Talk 64 01-20-2012 08:24 PM
Why there is no 3rd party WR lens? ducdao Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 12-08-2011 03:45 AM
Why there is no Zeiss K-mount lens in lens database henryjing Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-18-2010 01:39 AM
Why there is no zoom lens below f/2.8? Karellen Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 34 03-03-2010 10:06 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top