[HopelessTogger]

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?

No idea pal, but what he says resonates with my experience of using newly designed lenses, a Distagon being one of them.

[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 that would include the Zeiss Otus. The 55mm must suck.

[HopelessTogger]

So that would include the Zeiss Otus. The 55mm must suck.

Yeah, you're right, you win. Bye bye.

[LensBeginner]

Things are obviously not as clear-cut as he makes them, but his articles are nonetheless food for thought...
His demonstration methods are quite unscientific, but some of the things he says, I've noticed them myself.

As with everything, a grain of salt is needed, but his position has the merit of going against the grain of general, commonly accepted opinion.
It's possible that he adopts such a black/white approach because he is going completely against the prevailing opinion.
If the truth is 4 and everyone is saying -10, you have to say 12 in order to be heard...

[Canada_Rockies]

Yup, I knew there was a reason my old M42 glass et.al cranked out the best of pics, but Mr. Marketing man at ynoS (along with S. Huff Esq.) convinced me the latest/greatest was better, at astoundingly, painfully huge cost! Mini Otus this . . . best 35/1.4 EVER! that . . . Less is definitely more as it so happens regards elements/groups.

This applies to the FA Limited's too. Being "old skool" film glass design they give pop and bring great delight. No flatness there. I guess it also applies to many of the older designs as suggested by Yannick's article.

Considering the reality of all this, perhaps Pentax flogging the new bodies off the back of using the old lenses really is a winner in practical terms, although convincing Joe McFatWallet of this is a bit of a challenge. Getting the hell away from absolute sharpness to the exclusion of all else is a healthy mindset. If Pentax can take this on board and revise their old designs for digital without losing their character they may save themselves a lot of development cost and at the same time produce glass that produces fabulous photos.

The best outdoor portrait I ever took was on Kodachrome 10, in Stanley Park, in 1962. An original Asahi Pentax and the kit lens, a Takumar 55mm f/1.2 preset. The picture she was working on was an excellent reflector, and the old coatings gave the image a glow that was astounding.

[monochrome]

I suspect there is a large number of classic lens designs available in Pentax's patent catalog that can be revisited, both in the Milestone category as have been mentioned (I will add the K28/3.5) and in the IQ value for the money category such as the various 50/1.4's. Were I Pentax I would place a new new 50/1.4 between the DA50/1.8 and the DA*55/1.4 in price and aesthetic of construction, with the classic image rendering. Offer both the modern lens-test-sharp (D-FA* 55/1.4) and the classic subject isolation soft edges (D-FA 50/1.4 Limited SDM) and let the buyers choose.

RE: glass no longer available, if lead was necessary in the manufacture of the glass or present in the raw material, the specific glass is no longer available to make lenses. I think in 1999. effective some time later (a phase out window) EU banned lead in the manufacture of many things including glass.

"Flint glass is optical glass that has a relatively high refractive index and a low Abbe number*. Flint glasses are arbitrarily defined as having an Abbe number of 50 to 55 or less. The currently known flint glasses have refractive indices ranging between 1.45 and 2.00.

With respect to glass, the term flint derives from the flint nodules found in the chalk deposits of southeast England that were used as a source of high purity silica by George Ravenscroft, circa 1662, to produce a potash lead glass that was the predecessor to English lead crystal.

Traditionally, flint glasses were lead glasses containing around 4–60% lead oxide; however, the manufacture and disposal of these glasses are sources of pollution. In many modern flint glasses, the lead can be replaced with other additives such as titanium dioxide and zirconium dioxide without significantly altering the optical properties of the glass."

Nikon glass

[Winder]

Things are obviously not as clear-cut as he makes them, but his articles are nonetheless food for thought...
His demonstration methods are quite unscientific, but some of the things he says, I've noticed them myself.

As with everything, a grain of salt is needed, but his position has the merit of going against the grain of general, commonly accepted opinion.
It's possible that he adopts such a black/white approach because he is going completely against the prevailing opinion.
If the truth is 4 and everyone is saying -10, you have to say 12 in order to be heard...

The writer of the blog tries to use a correlation to prove causation. Many of the old lenses are great. Some of the Taks and of course lenses like the K 28mm F/2 "Hollywood" can produce stunning images under the right conditions and on the right camera. Many of the old lenses are also pretty average even though they have 5 to 7 elements. The Pentax A 50mm F/2 is a pretty average lens with only 5 elements. The DA* 55mm has 9 elements and is pretty damn awesome when it comes to a 3D rendering. There isn't a magic number of elements. Its all about the quality of the glass and the design. The new F-DA* 70-200mm is packed full of glass, but the images I have seen so far look very good for a zoom lens.

[pathdoc]

The best outdoor portrait I ever took was on Kodachrome 10, in Stanley Park, in 1962. An original Asahi Pentax and the kit lens, a Takumar 55mm f/1.2 preset. The picture she was working on was an excellent reflector, and the old coatings gave the image a glow that was astounding.

I didn't think Pentax made an f/1.2 prior to the K-mount. I know some others did. Source?

[Wild Mark]

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?

I take the blog as a message, not literally.

The 6 element rule deduced from this blog is too literal for me to swallow. Modern versus old???? Again, a little misleading.

There is definitely a trend in lens manufacture and that is to produce a lens with extraordinary sharpness. With that comes sacrifices that the less modern lenses have not necessarily made. The characteristics of older designs are being lost in the more recent element heavy designs. Is this a bad thing???

My thoughts are simply this. The newer lenses create a very specific purpose for themselves (in general). By being perfect in one image character they ultimately limit their utility. Older lenses won't compete with the specialty of the modern designs - I get and accept that. But they generally have greater utility and posses a broader character that is not quantitative.

I find photos taken by my 50+ year old lenses as pleasing (if not more pleasing) than my more recent lenses. For instance, my Auto Tak 35mm f2.3 is simply wonderful! Another is my K30/2.8, a lens that seems to be on par with if not better than the FA31 (I can hear to echo of scorn already).

But, if I want a clinical sharp image with no IQ defects then a modern lens is grabbed. The Sigma 35/1.4 seems to be an excellent macro .......

I am partly nostalgic but ultimately critical at the whole picture level. Sharpness is a factor as much is colour, tonality, micro contrast, bokeh you name it. On that score I will pick the lens for the task and generally, for the moment, I reach for old glass.

Cheers

---------- Post added 03-27-16 at 10:31 AM ----------

I didn't think Pentax made an f/1.2 prior to the K-mount. I know some others did. Source?

Perhaps the lens was 1:2 55mm

[pathdoc]

Perhaps the lens was 1:2 55mm

In which case it's the great granddaddy of one of mine (the SMC Tak 55/2). Coincidentally I am currently actually shooting single-in-March with a 55/1.2, but it's Ricoh's divergent take on the Pentax A type lens (Rikenon P) and is probably ultmately descended from a Porst or Cosina M42 progenitor or suchlike.

More on the topic, I think they should at some stage revisit the 50/1.2 formula. There's certainly a market for ultra-wide aperture, although you probably can't go much wider in K mount without running into diminishing returns, but 1.4 is enough for most people and I think a D-FA50/1.4 (with or without a star) is a higher priority right now. One day, though...

As for the Takumars, I badly want a Spotmatic F-D with a CCD chip, so I can focus wide open and have the camera stop it down for me when I shoot. But I will make do with film and with my K-5 for now. My 28 is just a gem, and my 35 has never really properly stretched its legs (Single-in came at the dreariest, whitest, coldest time of the year).

[Winder]

There is definitely a trend in lens manufacture and that is to produce a lens with extraordinary sharpness. With that comes sacrifices that the less modern lenses have not necessarily made. The characteristics of older designs are being lost in the more recent element heavy designs. Is this a bad thing???

My thoughts are simply this. The newer lenses create a very specific purpose for themselves (in general). By being perfect in one image character they ultimately limit their utility. Older lenses won't compete with the specialty of the modern designs - I get and accept that. But they generally have greater utility and posses a broader character that is not quantitative.

I think you have to look at Sigma specifically to see this. That is not what is happening with all manufacturers. The new Sony Zeiss 55mm F/1.8 is a Sonnar. The Loxia 50mm F/2 is a Planar. The Sony Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is a Distagon (1950's) similar to the manual focus Zeiss 35mm F/1.4. The integration of the AF motor has required that the focusing group be changed and in the case of the new Sony GM 70-200 F/2.8 you have 2 different focusing groups and 2 different motors.

All of the Fuji X-mount lenses are "modern" and their users love the look and IQ that they get from Fuji glass. I don't see any Fuji users complaining about the lack of 3D pop.

[pathdoc]

The integration of the AF motor has required that the focusing group be changed and in the case of the new Sony GM 70-200 F/2.8 you have 2 different focusing groups and 2 different motors.

And THIS is why I do not under any circumstances want DC motors put into the Limited primes, from any generation.

By all means build an equivalent D-FA* lens and make the housing large enough to fit all the bits in, but you cannot put a DC motor into a Limited prime and retain the small size that gives these lenses so much of their charm and appeal. Make mine a screwdrive.

[Winder]

And THIS is why I do not under any circumstances want DC motors put into the Limited primes, from any generation.

By all means build an equivalent D-FA* lens and make the housing large enough to fit all the bits in, but you cannot put a DC motor into a Limited prime and retain the small size that gives these lenses so much of their charm and appeal. Make mine a screwdrive.

I would like to see a quieter, more accurate screw drive.

I don't think many people realize the adding the AF motor to the lens is probably the single biggest reason for the changes in lens design. When Zeiss makes manual focus lenses like the Loxia they go right back to the established designs like the Planar 50mm F/2.0 It has modern coatings and is designed for high resolution sensors. Not much has really changed. Mirrorless AF systems need to make the focusing group as small and as light as possible. They have to look at new designs due to AF.

[Wild Mark]

I think you have to look at Sigma specifically to see this. That is not what is happening with all manufacturers. The new Sony Zeiss 55mm F/1.8 is a Sonnar. The Loxia 50mm F/2 is a Planar. The Sony Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is a Distagon (1950's) similar to the manual focus Zeiss 35mm F/1.4. The integration of the AF motor has required that the focusing group be changed and in the case of the new Sony GM 70-200 F/2.8 you have 2 different focusing groups and 2 different motors.

All of the Fuji X-mount lenses are "modern" and their users love the look and IQ that they get from Fuji glass. I don't see any Fuji users complaining about the lack of 3D pop.

If they are happy then I am happy - it is after all a subjective process to like an image.

The issue being discussed is the clinical nature of many modern lenses. I'm seeing that issue with the Sigma 35mm Art lens I have and concur with the theme of the thread. There are obviously exceptions. My original post indicates I have this perspective as I recommended the revisit of the K28/2 lens ( a distagon in disguise).

There is merit in the threads theme, but as with everything, there are exceptions. The one thing that hasn't been fully discussed is the value proposition of old versus new lenses. Sure, the lens you list might be modern lenses with legacy origins (hence remakes) but their cost is very high. Legacy lenses offer the less wealthy of us access to the quality.

Cheers

---------- Post added 03-27-16 at 11:54 AM ----------

I would like to see a quieter, more accurate screw drive.

I don't think many people realize the adding the AF motor to the lens is probably the single biggest reason for the changes in lens design. When Zeiss makes manual focus lenses like the Loxia they go right back to the established designs like the Planar 50mm F/2.0 It has modern coatings and is designed for high resolution sensors. Not much has really changed. Mirrorless AF systems need to make the focusing group as small and as light as possible. They have to look at new designs due to AF.

Thoroughly concur. The advent of the AF mechanism has perhaps been the single biggest impact on lens design - at least for Pentax. Keeping small and integrating AF has been a big challenge with compromise along the way. Take the FA28/2.8 and inclusion of the aspherical element. I was led to believe it was the best of the AF 28mm ...... wrong. The F28 is superior in all ways - why they changed the optical formula do not know.

[W412ren]

My SMC-A 24 2.8 is always in my bag even with the K-3. It has been near to my favorite lens on film (FF) for many years (decades). Add the A 50 f1.4, A 135 f2.8 and maybe even the wonderful small 200 f/4. On my K-3 this is a fabulous hand-holdable 300 equivalent. Those 4 lenses are my film kit with my MX (w/winder) right now, though I can certainly simply swap the MX for the K-3. The K-3 bag usually has these in it: DA 15 Limited, DA 35 macro Limited, jDA 70 Limited and DA18-135 WR.

This is it; spot on. A24, A50, A135 and occasionally the A200 with the 15/35/70 & 18-135. Excellent set up. 😊