[KDAFA]

If Pentax can take this on board and revise their old designs for digital without losing their character ...

That is the whole trick.

[bobmaxja]

Remember that some type of glass are not available anymore, meaning they still have to redesign the lens. Stop living in the past.

[jsherman999]

Whatever they do, they need to make sure their QA is as good as can possibly be. Moving from the MIJ FA Limiteds to the MIV ones resulted in several reviews (and many shooters) noticing a lack of sharpness, de-centering, etc.

There's no reason why the new manufacturing facilities and processes can't be brought up to snuff.

[HopelessTogger]

Remember that some type of glass are not available anymore, meaning they still have to redesign the lens. Stop living in the past.

Which glass?

Radioactive thorium oxide won't be used now but I can't see a reason for other types to be completely unavailable.

Edit: Just seen that the Mitakon Dark Knight 50/0.95 uses a radioactive lanthanum element. How radioactive I don't know.

---

Last edited by HopelessTogger; 03-26-2016 at 07:39 AM.

[Winder]

I haven't used either lens but I think Yannick's theory holds true for other modern lenses I have.

At what point does a lens become "modern"? The 31mm LTD and it has 1 Aspherical element, 1 ED element, and 1 HRLD element. Is that a "modern lens"? Auto-focus lenses in general are modern lenses. The 31mm is a pretty modern design. Yes it could use a new AF drive and nano coatings would be great, but the lens design itself is pretty modern.

Are we counting the number of elements? The Sigma 50mm has 13 elements so its modern, but lenses with 11 elements are not? Is that how it works?

[HopelessTogger]

At what point does a lens become "modern"? The 31mm LTD and it has 1 Aspherical element, 1 ED element, and 1 HRLD element. Is that a "modern lens"? Auto-focus lenses in general are modern lenses. The 31mm is a pretty modern design. Yes it could use a new AF drive and nano coatings would be great, but the lens design itself is pretty modern.

Are we counting the number of elements? The Sigma 50mm has 13 elements so its modern, but lenses with 11 elements are not? Is that how it works?

Yannick seems to think 6 elements is optimal and beyond 9 is where the flatness begins.

He also mentions the Sigma Art lenses are the worst for giving up microcontrast for sharpness and thus produce very flat images.

[LensBeginner]

Which glass?

Radioactive thorium oxide won't be used now but I can't see a reason for other types to be completely unavailable.

It might have something to do with the RoHS directive... I remember reading a story about some filters having to be completely redesigned due to that...

There it is:
NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights: Tale 51: - A Tribute to Soft Focus - Nikon Soft Focus Filters Soft 1 and Soft 2 By Haruo Sato

I would however consider that snide "stop living in the past" remark as myopic... we're not (at least, I am not) "living in the past", just analyzing trade-offs and NOT falling for all the DxO, dpreview etc. rage over lenses with perfect MTF charts and no soul at all.

I could consider a "modern zoom" if I were interested in sport photography, for instance, so I'm not saying that they don't have their place. Just that I find them a little bit soulless for the kind of pictures I like to take.

[HopelessTogger]

It might have something to do with the RoHS directive... I remember reading a story about some filters having to be completely redesigned due to that...

There it is:
NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights: Tale 51: - A Tribute to Soft Focus - Nikon Soft Focus Filters Soft 1 and Soft 2 By Haruo Sato

I would however consider that snide "stop living in the past" remark as myopic... we're not (at least, I am not) "living in the past", just analyzing trade-offs and NOT falling for all the DxO, dpreview etc. rage over lenses with perfect MTF charts and no soul at all.

I could consider a "modern zoom" if I were interested in sport photography, for instance, so I'm not saying that they don't have their place. Just that I find them a little bit soulless for the kind of pictures I like to take.

Thanks. Don't worry it's just the internet.

Yeah, I'm of the same mind on the sports togger lenses, would love a Sig 120-300/2.8 + 1.4x tc as a complete all rounder but sadly not available in K-mount. Shed load of cash too.

One thing about the Yannick Khong blog on lenses is it's stopped me chasing the lens dragon and got me considering how to best use what I have.

[KDAFA]

... we're not ... "living in the past", just analyzing trade-offs and NOT falling for all the DxO, dpreview etc. rage over lenses with perfect MTF charts and no soul at all.

I could consider a "modern zoom" if I were interested in sport photography, for instance, so I'm not saying that they don't have their place. Just that I find them a little bit soulless for the kind of pictures I like to take.

And soul, rendering character, are difficult (or sometimes plain impossible?) to measure, so they tend to get dismissed in all the interest for numbers. But it's real, it's there, and adds tremendous value to a picture.

[HopelessTogger]

Whatever they do, they need to make sure their QA is as good as can possibly be. Moving from the MIJ FA Limiteds to the MIV ones resulted in several reviews (and many shooters) noticing a lack of sharpness, de-centering, etc.

There's no reason why the new manufacturing facilities and processes can't be brought up to snuff.

Had to get a new FA31 stripped and rebuilt once, it's lovely now mind.

QC is a big problem for Sony lenses. I've been on the receiving end of this. Quite why Zeiss allow them to use the blue badge on those things is beyond me.

[Sliver-Surfer]

The problem with Khong's theory is that its crap. Have you seen some of the images from the new D-FA* 70-200mm? The new Sony 85mm F/1.4 GM is very good.

I agree 100% with you Winder the Samples he provides use strong shadows and highlights to give 3D Pop in the older lens and flat lighting in the newer lenses. I like Old lenses as much or more than new lenses but his article is bunk..


However Nikon still produces MF lenses so why shouldnt Pentax revisit some -A classics like
50/1.2
15/3.5
28/2
50/2.8 macro
135/1.8*

[Winder]

Yannick seems to think 6 elements is optimal and beyond 9 is where the flatness begins.

He also mentions the Sigma Art lenses are the worst for giving up microcontrast for sharpness and thus produce very flat images.

What makes a lens "modern"?

[Tan68]

What makes a lens "modern"?

price is one criteria

---------- Post added 03-26-16 at 10:35 AM ----------

Whatever they do, they need to make sure their QA is as good as can possibly be. Moving from the MIJ FA Limiteds to the MIV ones resulted in several reviews (and many shooters) noticing a lack of sharpness, de-centering, etc.

There's no reason why the new manufacturing facilities and processes can't be brought up to snuff.

There is no reason. Still, it can be hard to bring things up to snuff. Here, I mean neither Vietnamese as a whole (or part) nor lens manufacture at all. Things depend not only on culture in a broad sense but culture within the company. This culture and behavior can vary with division and by plant. It should be possible to have all things be the same everywhere, but it isn't likely [better: 'always certain']...

There are too many things that come to play when determining if the common denominator will be high, low, or average.

[HopelessTogger]

What makes a lens "modern"?

Lenses designed for digital and optimized for pixel peeping sharpness using newly designed coatings and lots of elements is what I think Yannick is getting at when he says "modern".

[Winder]

Lenses designed for digital and optimized for pixel peeping sharpness using newly designed coatings and lots of elements is what I think Yannick is getting at when he says "modern".

So the Distagon which is produced in the 1950's and typically has 11 elements must suck. Of the 3 Pentax Limited lenses the 43mm has 7 elements so it must be better than the 31mm which has 9 elements. The famous K 28mm F/2 also has 9 elements so it can't be as good either, yet the K 28mm F/2 sells for more used than the 43mm LTD does new.....

The less glass you use the better, but there is a lot more to it. The quality of that glass is probably more important. There are a lot of crappy lenses out there that have 6-9 elements. The Zeiss Otus 55mm has 12 elements. The Leica 28mm Lux has 10 elements. The Pentax M 28mm F/2.8 only has 7 elements and sells for $50.00, but it has almost the "optimal" number of elements so it must be better than the Leica, right? Do you really believe that?