[Digitalis]

He's singing from the same basic song-sheet as YouTube's "Angry Photographer"

That guy annoys the hell out of me, and from watching some of his videos it is apparent he comes from the tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy side of the internet. Not to mention having perhaps the most dispassionate, boring voice. But in the same way a stopped clock can be right twice a day he does say some things that are technically correct - for instance: there is no perfect lens.

And how he pronounces the name Nikon grates on my ears.

If he is so angry with photography, why is he so involved in it?

[stevebrot]

And aren't the Pentax DA limited pancake lenses based on the Tessar design? (so, all DA limited except 15mm and 35mm macro) This is what makes them pancakes, sharp, but not super sharp and rather slow aperture.

I don't think so. Tessar is four elements in three groups as below:



The DA Limiteds are complex designs.

[Scintilla]

And aren't the Pentax DA limited pancake lenses based on the Tessar design? (so, all DA limited except 15mm and 35mm macro) This is what makes them pancakes, sharp, but not super sharp and rather slow aperture.
So Pentax might not be far from that guy's "line of realism" at all. Is the HD DA 70mm known to have better 3D contrast than the FA 77mm ltd? The 77mm has an extra piece of glass and older coatings, faster aperture

According to a series of charts I've seen created by no-X on mflenses.com that attempt to classify a huge variety of lens designs (except retrofocal ones, so the 15 and 21 won't be on there):

• the DA 40 Limited is in a class of its own as an "Unar-Elmar hybrid" (5 in 4), where the Elmar is a Tessar at heart and the Unar has a different rear group than the Tessar but is still in the greater Cooke triplet family
• the DA 70 Limited is an Ultron design (6 in 5, a Planar with the front doublet split), same basic design as the Pentax 50/1.7s, Pentax/Takumar 55/1.8s, and the Contax Zeiss Planars 85/1.4 and 100/2

[jeffshaddix]

According to a series of charts I've seen created by no-X on mflenses.com that attempt to classify a huge variety of lens designs (except retrofocal ones, so the 15 and 21 won't be on there):

• the DA 40 Limited is in a class of its own as an "Unar-Elmar hybrid" (5 in 4), where the Elmar is a Tessar at heart and the Unar has a different rear group than the Tessar but is still in the greater Cooke triplet family
• the DA 70 Limited is an Ultron design (6 in 5, a Planar with the front doublet split), same basic design as the Pentax 50/1.7s, Pentax/Takumar 55/1.8s, and the Contax Zeiss Planars 85/1.4 and 100/2

Interesting, could you post a link to the source? I'd like to read more.

As for the OP article, it's a fair point shrouded in technical misunderstanding. Old designs aren't necessarily better, I think what he's going for is just: quit designing lenses for test charts, but for actual photographic applications, and that I can 100% agree with. There was an old article about the FA77 that said as much: intentionally left spherical aberrations undercorrected to improve portraiture work.

[pinholecam]

I can see his line of argument.
The relentless pursuit of spec sheet, numerical considerations over other perhaps more 'aesthetic' considerations.
We as consumers, in this relentless chase of one up-manship based on numbers that online lens reviews churn out may well be pushing lens makers to do only one type of lens.
So we see all the big/heavy ARTs, OTUS, f1.4 wides, f1.8 zooms, etc.

Any maker who deviates commits commercial suicide. (because in this numbers game, a lens is already perceived as a 'loser' (by number based reviews), even before the potential buyer tries one)


I'd have thought Pentax users with the FA ltds, DA ltds, nice small M lenses would kind of agree with his sentiment.
So I'm really surprised that so many readily pounced on the writer for his article.


Here's a link to the article about the FA ltds, which in some way speak about doing what is different in their lens design approach.
Lessons from a Legendary Lens Designer | Photographic Ideals, Basic Principles | The Northcoast Photographer



For me, I can understand the joy in using certain small lenses, even though they may not be the most optically perfect.
Same thing for many lenses that would be termed 'flawed' if just based on numbers (eg. Takumar 58/2; Helios 44; Industar lenses; J9 (most shorter FL sonnars in fact), CZJ Biotar, etc) but its really up to the user to use its lens to its strength.

[wkraus]

I'd have a coffee lens please.

(Referring to his New Lens Acquisition Behaviour diagram.)

[Rondec]

You need different tools for different situations. Not all Pentax lenses are well corrected or have amazing border sharpness and depending on the image, that is probably OK. Comparing the FA 77 to the Sigma 85 or the FA 31 to the Sigma 35 -- the Sigma's are larger, have more complex design and better border sharpness wide open, but I like the look of the FA limited photos better.

[wildman]

Without comment:

Steinheil Fluorite triplet Apochromat
560mm f/7.1, at prime focus,
Female Oriole at about 30 feet.
FF and crop taken through a K20 sensor.

[Digitalis]

You need different tools for different situations. Not all Pentax lenses are well corrected or have amazing border sharpness and depending on the image

Not just pentax, every lens manufacturer including Leica and Zeiss have at least one lens to their name that isn't exactly bleeding sharp across the frame. Your comment for the right tool for the job brings to mind the Petzval lenses from the 1800s. A modern 8X10 lens such as the Schneider 240mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar-S and a 12" Petzval f/4 , both lenses have very different imaging properties: the 240mm APO Symmar has a very flat field, fully apochromatic and provides a generous imaging circle big enough to allow for complex camera movements. In contrast, The 12" Petzval lens cannot be used with movements as its image circle is very limited, the degree of colour correction is almost non existent* but the Petzval lenses were the most popular portrait lenses of their time - and are still sought after to this day for their unique rendering.

*especially towards the edge of the imaging circle, Besides these lenses were invented at the time when wet plate collodion process was at the height of popularity so it was of little concern at the time.

[Rondec]

Not just pentax, every lens manufacturer including Leica and Zeiss have at least one lens to their name that isn't exactly bleeding sharp across the frame. Your comment for the right tool for the job brings to mind the Petzval lenses from the 1800s. A modern 8X10 lens such as the Schneider 240mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar-S and a 12" Petzval f/4 , both lenses have very different imaging properties: the 240mm APO Symmar has a very flat field, fully apochromatic and provides a generous imaging circle big enough to allow for complex camera movements. In contrast, The 12" Petzval lens cannot be used with movements as its image circle is very limited, the degree of colour correction is almost non existent* but the Petzval lenses were the most popular portrait lenses of their time - and are still sought after to this day for their unique rendering.

*especially towards the edge of the imaging circle, Besides these lenses were invented at the time when wet plate collodion process was at the height of popularity so it was of little concern at the time.

I am reminded of the difference between the DFA 100 macro and the FA 77. The macro has a flatter field, sharper edge to edge, but honestly, the FA 77 is way better at portraiture than the macro, while of course, the macro is way better for macro photography than the FA 77 is.

[Scintilla]

Interesting, could you post a link to the source? I'd like to read more.

Sure thing:
List of lens diagrams: triplets, planars & hybrid lenses

[jeffshaddix]

Sure thing:
List of lens diagrams: triplets, planars & hybrid lenses

Thank you kindly!

[gfurm]

I've read this and few other posts on his site. I tried to see the difference he's talking about in this post Depth vs. Flat Lens Quick Comparison ? YANNICK KHONG . I can't see the flatness or 3d effect he's talking about.

[GlennG]

In the lower section of the article is a section "A Call for Change" in which the author provides:


If people are listening right now and realizing the gravity of the situation, here are some suggested changes in photography gear talk:

• A clear indication of lens application specialty based on where the lens is situated within the lens intention diagram.
• If a lens is made for extreme low-light and thin-dof shooting, don't suggest using it on anything else!
• An honest discussion on the lens’ renditional abilities based on how it measures on the 3 opposing properties of the lens diagram.
• A better and simplified (5th grade level vocabulary) education of lens usage in relation to modern sensors of high gain and advanced SNR firmware algorithms (i.e. encouraging correction by aperture instead of correction by glass element)
• A strict demand for true improvement to modern optics by rejuvenating old designs with improved high quality glass and coating.
• A better and simplified education of lens design (what plastic elements do vs. full glass vs ED, etc…) to justify eminent increased pricing.
• A more critical and educated demography of users.

Much of the above has to do with lens selection and use education, both by makers and consumers. So, I'm all for education. Where do we start? Or are we doing it right now in this post? I was trying to learn something from our above discussion, but I can't tell what it should be.

[Digitalis]

the macro is way better for macro photography than the FA 77 is.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, with some extension tubes the FA77 does a more than passable job at macrophotography.


Pentax K5IIs- Pentax SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited + 11mm extension tube.[vignetting is intentional]