[W.j.christy]

There is a post in the lens forum right now about this article :


The Problem with Modern Optics ? YANNICK KHONG.




And lots of good conversation going on here (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/317364-new-glass-ol...revisit-2.html) about which lenses Ricoh/Pentax should remake or update. After reading the article and trying to grasp the concepts it put forth I have to admit I am a little stumped as the differences between the modern high element count and the legacy low optical count lenses the writer is trying to demonstrate. Perhaps its just my eyes and I can't see the 3D effects that are lacking in the newer lenses, or perhaps its my computer screen and things would be different if I saw the image on paper.


I guess my question is, and this is the reason I started a separate thread for it, do others see the difference between the older lens designs and the newer ones? I can see that the colors of the older lenses are, to my eyes, more intense but that could be due to post processing.


Whats your take?

[boriscleto]

There was a 5 page discussion ...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/315566-simp...gn-better.html

[W.j.christy]

Looks like I didn't search hard enough! Thanks!

[TER-OR]

I'm never quite sure whether it's the old glass or technique. Certainly the "glass and brass" lenses FEEL great. They were built for manual focus and it feels right. You have to pay more attention to your camera settings, depth of field, exposure and lighting than with modern lenses. I think that can make a big difference to the final image. After all, the closer you get to optimal exposure the less post-processing you need to do.

Nature vs. Nurture, I suppose. I have taken some very good images with M and A 50mm lenses. I'd stack my DA21mm up against them, though.

[dsmithhfx]

Get your credit cards out. Some maker of bespoke lenses will step up RSN to fill a perceived market void with a pricey new line of old lens designs in plastic (excuse me, polycarbonate), that link with modren digicam widget gizmos thingamabobs af-ae-is-wtf doohickeys , setting off fierce debates over 3d pop &suchlike.

[W.j.christy]

Get your credit cards out. Some maker of bespoke lenses will step up RSN to fill a perceived market void with a pricey new line of old lens designs in plastic (excuse me, polycarbonate), that link with modren digicam widget gizmos thingamabobs af-ae-is-wtf doohickeys , setting off fierce debates over 3d pop &suchlike.

LOL Don't forget there will defiantly have to be a line of top end whatchamajigers to ensure full compatibility with all modern dslrs!


Oh and lets not forget the lens profiles for the various PP programs to ensure optimal images are produced will most assuredly need to be made!

[AxMarr]

That was a great article. Thank you for sharing. I was watching some You-Tube videos made by a "Tuber" named the Angry Photographer. Be warned: he is a Nikon fan-boy but uses Pentax for medium format work. He is quite the character but you have to filter that out in order to receive the valuable info he is presenting. He pretty much explains that lenses with too many glass elements reduce the amount of light that reach the sensor which makes sense, therefore diminishing the quality of the image. The Angry photographer advocates the use of old and some new generation prime lenses, which contain less glass. The high amount of glass elements also "flatten" the image, making it less life like and 2 dimensional. Compare the noses of the models in the photo's presented in the article.

Now that I am aware of the difference it can make, I pay attention to amount of glass elements when shopping for a new lens. The last triangle diagram in the article separates the uses for low count element versus high count element lenses. The use of those lenses with a low amount of glass lenses fall above the "Line of Realism". The use of those lenses with high amount of glass fall below the "Line of Realism". You can therefore see how much more useful low count glass element lens is compared to high count of glass elements in a lens while keeping the "realism" of the image.

By their nature, zoom lenses require more glass elements to produce the range they offer. Very convenient, but you sacrifice the 3D effect and a reduction of light/color transmitted to the sensor. Currently, of the eight lenses that I own, only two are zooms, one of those being the "Stack of Primes", the SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5. I would nominate this lens for Pentax for an update/reproduction. Of the eight I own, four are current production lenses. The others are considered "Legacy" by this forums account.

Hope this was helpful.

---

Last edited by AxMarr; 04-04-2016 at 07:57 AM.

[pathdoc]

Hope this was helpful.

Angry and Yannick Khong appear to know each other quite well - Khong shows up on Angry's channel and most of the time they seem in agreement, so finding Khong's name attached to the article came as no real surprise to me.

Be warned: he is a Nikon fan-boy

He comes across to me as more of a devotee - he got heavily into Fuji mirrorless a short time back and sings the praises of that for certain things over his Nikon gear, and he's really ripping Nikon a new one right now over the D5 - he absolutely loathes it. Fan-boys tend to supplicate unquestioningly at the feet of their gods; Angry doesn't hesitate to tell them where to go if he doesn't like something they're doing. Where he goes in fanboy terms is his Sony bashing; he's not at all afraid to tell you how badly they suck.

[AxMarr]

Angry and Yannick Khong appear to know each other quite well - Khong shows up on Angry's channel and most of the time they seem in agreement, so finding Khong's name attached to the article came as no real surprise to me.



He comes across to me as more of a devotee - he got heavily into Fuji mirrorless a short time back and sings the praises of that for certain things over his Nikon gear, and he's really ripping Nikon a new one right now over the D5 - he absolutely loathes it. Fan-boys tend to supplicate unquestioningly at the feet of their gods; Angry doesn't hesitate to tell them where to go if he doesn't like something they're doing. Where he goes in fanboy terms is his Sony bashing; he's not at all afraid to tell you how badly they suck.

Guess I missed the videos where he criticizes Nikon. He is right on as far as using primes and lenses with the least number of glass elements.

[pathdoc]

Guess I missed the videos where he criticizes Nikon.

Do a Youtube search for "Angry Photographer" and either "Nikon Fail" or "Nikon D5"

[osv]

if fewer elements in lenses were better, that's what companies would be doing.

but since the overwhelming trend is to put more elements in lenses, fewer lenses can't be better.

but more elements does not seem logical, because glass attenuates light... however:

"Ordinary glass lenses transmit most of the light that hits them, but even so, about 4% of this light is lost to surface reflection. Since lenses have front and rear surfaces, this means that the overall loss of light from passing through one lens element is 8%. Most camera lenses are made up of five to 10 elements, and so in the end, the total amount of light getting through the lens is reduced by about 50%. Lens coatings were developed to prevent surface reflection and boost light transmission. Coating lenses enables more light to pass through them.

...Surface reflection can be reduced by applying coatings to the lens surface. You might think that coating the lens surface would block light, but in fact it increases light transmission. This is because light is reflected first by the coating surface, and then by the lens surface itself. The light reflected by the coating surface and that reflected by the lens surface have a phase difference of twice the coating thickness. If the thickness of the coating is one quarter of the wavelength of the light to be suppressed, light of that wavelength reflected by the coating surface and light reflected by the lens surface will cancel each other out. This reduces the overall amount of light reflected. In short, coatings make use of light wave interference phenomena to eliminate reflections... The technology for applying coatings of over 10 layers has been developed, and Canon's high-end lenses featuring such coatings provide light transmission of 99.9% over a range that extends from ultraviolet to near-infrared light." Canon : Canon Technology | Canon Science Lab | Lens Coatings

http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/white_papers/PersonalityofCinemaLens4.pdf

i think that dxo measures transmittance? and defines it as t-stop, so it can be compared between lenses that have variations in the number of elements: Light transmission - DxOMark

[Digitalis]

Whats your take?

In a nutshell: it's amateurish clickbait crap .

He is right on as far as using primes and lenses with the least number of glass elements.

Many of his assumptions about primes are incorrect. His theory that Multi-element zoom lenses and primes are somehow reducing color gamut is hilarious.

[osv]

In a nutshell: it's amateurish clickbait crap .

Many of his assumptions about primes are incorrect. His theory that Multi-element zoom lenses and primes are somehow reducing color gamut is hilarious.

amen, lol... he's an idiot.

the first pic of a person in the article: "Notice the flat nose and head."... well, the nose and forehead are out of focus, and he's got the lens stuck right in the guys face.

he calls that "Modern prime lenses fall below what’s natural", when in reality what he should do is learn how to use a camera.

[robjmitchell]

I haven't read the article, but my take is that you have lenses with more elements you are going to suffer contrast wise unless you have extremely good lens coatings. You may also have an increased chance of lens mis-alignment. Then there are the compromises inherent in any lens design that might for instance result in less attractive out of focus rendering for the sake of being sharp wide open in the corners.
With the right technology and right compromises you can achieve just about anything (at a price)
The new D-FA* 70-200 shows great 3d character and great Bokeh in a complex lens design thus proving the author is incorrect in his assertions about lens complexity being the cause (as opposed to deliberate choices by lens designers trying to achieve different objectives)

[W.j.christy]

So in it would seem the author of the article doesn't really have any evidence, other than anecdotal, of his theory.


I do agree with the point that seems to have been reiterated here several times that education on what lens to use with what type of photography would be good (in a very very general manner), however, it truly is up to the photographer and or their audience to determine what is beautiful.


I am glad though that there appear to be more folks like me who have trouble seeing the difference in 3d affect as I do. Honestly, I have a sigma 17-50 f2.8 which, according to the lens database has 17 lenses, and it has some great 3d rendering qualities, dare I say almost better than my 50mm F1.8 prime.