[Kevin B123]

Such a lens is a bit too specialised, and if it exists it is on the James Webb telescope.

The Hubble one is a bit flawed if I recall.

Of course the specs for the JW telescope is right for the intended task, and our photography tasks are bit less demanding , at least mine are.

[sbh]

An interview with a developer from Zeiss a few years back comes to mind. He said, for maximum optical performance a lens would be expensive beyond what people would pay for and it would be larger than people would be willing to carry around.

[Digitalis]

Of course, if not speaking of a camera lens, the eye would be as close as we could come to the perfect lens, eh?

Actually, the human eye is rubbish. If it weren't for the incredible computational photography of the human brain its numbers would not stack up at all.

^THIS^

He said, for maximum optical performance a lens would be expensive beyond what people would pay for and it would be larger than people would be willing to carry around.

There was a rumor decades ago that Contax commisioneed Zeiss to produce a 24-70mm f/2 lens for their update to the flagship camera the RTS III (circa 1990s). What they got as a prototype was indeed optically superb even at f/2 across the zoom range, however the lens itself physically had the approximate dimensions of a beer keg...Suffice to say, several compromises were involved and the designers managed to get the size and bulk down, while keeping optical performance and cost to acceptable levels.

[Rondec]

There is no "perfect" lens. I guess you are referring specifically to sharpness and lack of aberrations? Because size and flare resistance and things like that often come to bear when you build a lens that has "optical perfection" in other respects.

Every lens is a bit of a compromise -- even lenses like the DFA *50 and 85 that are pretty close to perfect.

[Fogel70]

An interview with a developer from Zeiss a few years back comes to mind. He said, for maximum optical performance a lens would be expensive beyond what people would pay for and it would be larger than people would be willing to carry around.

It is probably this interesting video.
An interview with Dr Hubert Nasse, that unfortunately passed away a few years after this video was recorded.

You Tube

You Tube

[Jonathan Mac]

I know of different lens design features, such as Floating Element, Internal Focus, Flat Fieldand some more I can't recall, is it possible to put them all together to produce a lens with zero 'breathing', zero distortion, zero vignetting and sharp from edge to edge wide open with prefect round bokeh ? as far as I remember floating element is used in wide angle, where flat field for macros/copier, and internal focus for telephoto, so it sounds impossible to have them all in one lens even prime, right ?

I was going to say it's impossible but if you limit it to a prime then maybe not, but then it's not perfect because it only covers one focal length... plus it would probably be huge, as many modern, hyper-corrected lenses are.

If only my wife understood that no lens is perfect and that obviously the solution is to own many...

[Fogel70]

If only my wife understood that no lens is perfect and that obviously the solution is to own many...

Yep, there is only one possible solution for a perfect lens - get every imperfect lens.

[normhead]

Yep, there is only one possible solution for a perfect lens - get every imperfect lens.

Now put this all to good use, and someone come up with a perfect combination of lenses. One for every occasions. Maybe start with the list of occasions.

I'll be checking homework in the morning and it will be on the next test.

[que es tu]

No, because perfect is subjective. ie people thought Cindy Crawford was “perfect, but I didn’t think so!

[normhead]

No, because perfect is subjective. ie people thought Cindy Crawford was “perfect, but I didn’t think so!

But was she "good enough?"

That's pretty much the way I approach lens perfection as well.

[que es tu]

But was she "good enough?"

That's pretty much the way I approach lens perfection as well.

Yes! She was good enough! I would agree with that for lens perfection, too!

[jcdoss]

Yes! She was good enough! I would agree with that for lens perfection, too!

She probably still is. All my lenses are from around that time period too, or older!

[luftfluss]

I feel this sudden urge to drink a Pepsi...

[que es tu]

Now put this all to good use, and someone come up with a perfect combination of lenses. One for every occasions. Maybe start with the list of occasions.

I'll be checking homework in the morning and it will be on the next test.

Well, okay! Let’s see:

Hiking, backpacking, family action photos: 18-135

Dedicated wildlife or amateur sports: 55-300 PLM

Portraits: 70mm Ltd

General landscape: 21mm Ltd

Wide angle landscape or storytelling landscape: 15mm Ltd

Macro: 100mm macro

[normhead]

That list works for me.... although my Sigma 70 macro is my favourite portrait lens, but it's the right focal length.