[HopelessTogger]

Interesting article, glad I have all those Takumars to try.

The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3d pop

The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3d pop ? YANNICK KHONG

The rise of the megapixels have given the opportunity to the industry to convince users to buy lenses that can “resolve” the resolution of the high-mp sensor. As such, the lenses are more and more corrected (more elements) to provide a satisfying level of perceptual sharpness when the image is viewed up close from 100% to 400% zoom at maximum aperture. Many review sites, including those who use those lenses in a “real world scenario”, will convince people in buying flat lenses for the sake of sharpness and bokeh or character. They will never be evaluated for depth rendition where they all fail.

This Yannick Khong chap is making so much sense. Ricoh/Pentax should read his blog before they follow the rest of the industry in making ultra sharp/ultra flat boring glass for their new high megapixel K-1.

[Winder]

This Yannick Khong chap is making so much sense. Ricoh/Pentax should read his blog before they follow the rest of the industry in making ultra sharp/ultra flat boring glass for their new high megapixel K-1.

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.

[reh321]

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.

Part of the thing is that our standards have changed. At one time, sharpness in the center was good, but softness on the edges/corners was OK because it would lead one's gaze back to the center/theme. Now, we are so focused on sharpness everywhere that I use the term "needle sharp" instead of "razor sharp" because we seem to be addicted to it.

[bilybianca]

First of all: an updated D-FA* 200mm macro
#2: D-FA* 200mm macro
#3: D-FA* 200mm macro

and then the rest...

Kjell

[HopelessTogger]

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

[Kunzite]

He might have a point... but then, I can't take seriously someone whose example of lens' flat rendering the nose of a (beautiful, but obviously not long-nose) Asian girl.

[HopelessTogger]

He might have a point... but then, I can't take seriously someone whose example of lens' flat rendering the nose of a (beautiful) Asian girl.

But the 3D nose is impressive! A proper 3D nose!

[Wild Mark]

Oh yeah - sure my older M42, K, M, A, F and FA lenses have their 'faults' but I do agree with the sentiment. The colours and #D effect of these lenses are very good.

I recently got a Sigma 35/1.4 thinking yeah, now I have a real piece of glass. Hmmmm sharp - yes - but the article has hit my unconscious thoughts on the head. Images are FLAT.

I haven't used the Sigma lens all that much - not surprisingly.

---------- Post added 03-26-16 at 09:17 PM ----------

Re: resurrecting lens designs I would strongly suggest:

FA20/2.8
SMC24/3.5
K28/2
A28/2
K30/2.8
AT35/2.3
FA43
ST50/1.4 eight element
A35-105/3.5
FA*85/1.4
F*135/2.8
A*200/4
F*300/4.5
FA*250-600
F*600/4

and a real left of field suggestion K 45-125/4

[Audi 5 cyl]

Thank you for the links, I find them useful and they do make me think.

First of all I am not a pro and I am happy with the results I'm getting from my lenses.

I am using old MF glass most of the time, while new(ish) lenses collect dust. Would love to see some old designs revisited but I find several problems here, each one causing the next one. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

- The number of elements in new generation lenses is higher but the volume and weight of the individual element as well as total glass weight is higher in older lenses.
- Older designs are heavier
- More complicated and sturdier autofocus mechanism design is a necessity when moving heavier elements
- More power used for focusing will decrease battery life (Example, my K-30 is rated for 410 pictures battery live but with manual lenses this number doubles at least).

I find great joy in "manual" photography and would like to see some new manual focusing lenses as well but I am not entirely sure if I want to put more modern glass and modern coatings on the old lens designs. I guess it would depend on the lens but I do want my lenses to keep the greenish or yellowish tinge, to stay flairy beasts as they are.

I would neither mind a digital FF camera with the same level of technology as an MX for example, including only shake reduction, mirror lock up for cleaning and raw format compatibility. I personally do not need a flash, GPS, Star-tracers, Pixel-shift, complicated aperture control mechanism, auto-focus motor, live view, other modes except M and A and a set of other modern thingies. I am sure I am not the only one.

[HopelessTogger]

Thank you for the links, I find them useful and they do make me think.

First of all I am not a pro and I am happy with the results I'm getting from my lenses.

I am using old MF glass most of the time, while new(ish) lenses collect dust. Would love to see some old designs revisited but I find several problems here, each one causing the next one. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

- The number of elements in new generation lenses is higher but the volume and weight of the individual element as well as total glass weight is higher in older lenses.
- Older designs are heavier
- More complicated and sturdier autofocus mechanism design is a necessity when moving heavier elements
- More power used for focusing will decrease battery life (Example, my K-30 is rated for 410 pictures battery live but with manual lenses this number doubles at least).

I find great joy in "manual" photography and would like to see some new manual focusing lenses as well but I am not entirely sure if I want to put more modern glass and modern coatings on the old lens designs. I guess it would depend on the lens but I do want my lenses to keep the greenish or yellowish tinge, to stay flairy beasts as they are.

I would neither mind a digital FF camera with the same level of technology as an MX for example, including only shake reduction, mirror lock up for cleaning and raw format compatibility. I personally do not need a flash, GPS, Star-tracers, Pixel-shift, complicated aperture control mechanism, auto-focus motor, live view, other modes except M and A and a set of other modern thingies. I am sure I am not the only one.

Unless it's an ultra wide lens, I'm useless at manual focusing. I agree, stick with the old glass it brings me joy too, especially when I consider the price/performance ratio compared to new fancy gear.

Regarding the basic camera, Leica do a stripped down M in the form of the "Leica 60" and charge 12,000 quid for it . . . go figure! Pentax could do a stripped down FF taking the form of an old Spotmatic or something and charge £1300 for it. Be great to have a 24mp BSI sensor with IBIS, focus peaking and optimal manual control and not too much else, all designed (including the look of the the thing) for the old glass. I'd be up for that.

[biz-engineer]

Love to hear members thoughts on this. I have no clue as to coatings and the effects of special elements, combinations of elements and really technical lens stuff. Interested to learn.

I believe modern coatings can be used as a way to recover some of the image quality while using lower grade (cheaper) glass. Some of the old lenses are sensitive to flare and have more CA but when exposed in favorable conditions they deliver more clarity and truthfulness to the images , compared to newer lenses. I attribute this to much less corrective coating and higher grade glass of the older lens designs. With some of the latest digital cameras, I'd pretty sure that images are able to reach excel lab test results , but images tend to look like if they were computer synthesized. I'm not sure how to prevent this industry trend.

[Audi 5 cyl]

Unless it's an ultra wide lens, I'm useless at manual focusing. I agree, stick with the old glass it brings me joy too, especially when I consider the price/performance ratio compared to new fancy gear.

Regarding the basic camera, Leica do a stripped down M in the form of the "Leica 60" and charge 12,000 quid for it . . . go figure! Pentax could do a stripped down FF taking the form of an old Spotmatic or something and charge £1300 for it. Be great to have a 24mp BSI sensor with IBIS, focus peaking and optimal manual control and not too much else, all designed (including the look of the the thing) for the old glass. I'd be up for that.

If I could go for a stripped down FF, even for the same price, I would not think twice. Compared to Leica 60, I would have like to review the photographs immediately sometimes and would like to keep a screen but hey, with DOF preview, I could do without as well.

I'm not bombing with the cameras any more. Last post.

Back to lenses.

[clockworkrat]

Whilst he may or may not be correct in his assertions, he is being rightly criticised for poorly evidencing his argument. To pick completely different scenes and people, and to use the comparison between them to make any kind of claim is ridiculous. The thing is, I don't even necessarily disagree with him - though only in anecdotes. Maybe having optical "flaws" in a lens does give its images a certain character. Obsessing over MTF charts, eliminating any CA, and crying for corner to corner sharpness at F1.4 is hardly worth it for all but the most demanding of professional photographers.

But that's industry for you; if there's no essential demand for a product then the demand must be made. How else are Sigma, Zeiss, etc going to convince people to give up their old glass?

[KDAFA]

Pentax needs a 24mm lens.

Really agree.

That FA*24/2 made such beautiful images.....

---------- Post added 03-26-16 at 10:56 PM ----------

Pentax is very close to "having it all" -- i.e. IMHO it makes sense for lens manufacturers to offer two "styles" of each prime lens for two different shooting styles/markets:

• bulky, WR + silent AF + (plastic body?) + (slightly faster?)
• small/lightweight, metal, lens aperture settings, manual focus override, screw drive

Michael

Agree. Well put.

[jeverettfine]

I remember the first time I picked up an FA lens and thought it was a light weight piece of crap. I did not like the plastic feel...not a good first impression. Most of that first impression has changed for the better, but I very much disliked the undampened focus. I realize now that the focus had to be free for the autofocus to work well. Internal focusing is one solution. The lenses have gotten better mechanically and optically, witness the DA Limiteds etc, and Lens design has come a long way. But, sometimes change does not mean improvement. I think Pentax/Ricoh is smart enough to look back on what made Pentax so famous and revisit some of the old designs.