"There is no difference in performance between a new high-quality lens
and a high-quality lens made twenty years ago. For normal, everyday
photography there is no reason to be obsessive about the latest
developments in lenses. The quality of reproduction is good enough even
without the latest lenses, and so long as you are not all thumbs you can
get great results with old lenses. The picture, after all, is much more
about the sharpness of the person standing behind the camera than the
sharpness of the lens."
This is almost certainly true for most fixed-focal-length lenses.
However, it is _not_ true for zooms, which have drastically improved in
the past two decades. The following developments have made possible
improved lenses:
>> CAD made it possible to improve the general run of lenses and create new
>> types (especially ultra wide angles) or high-speed lenses that weren't
>> previously practical.
>> Multi-coating permits more-complex lenses with better correction, wider zoom
>> ranges, etc.
>> Low-dispersion glass has improved longer telephotos and some zooms.
>> The ability to mold (rather than grind) aspheric glass surfaces * allows
>> simpler or more highly corrected lenses.
On the other hand, the laws of optics haven't changed. Lenses are only
as good as the designer (or the company's accountant!) wants them to be.
Truly great lenses were designed long before we had computers or
multi-coating. I remember an article about the Kodak Medalist (a 620
camera from the '40s) which said that it probably had the finest lens
ever put on any camera of any type. The Minox lens falls into the same
category -- it has a claimed resolution of 200 lp/mm, and it delivers it
across the entire field. **
A famous photographer (I think it was Steichen) once said that we had
not yet exhausted the possibilities of the box camera (!). In the long
run, it's "the nut holding the camera" that makes the difference.
* This is a major breakthrough, and I'm surprised that no photo magazine
has covered it.
** It "cheats" to do this: the pressure plate curves the film plane to
match the field curvature of the lens. (The "current" Minox lens was
designed 25 years ago, probably with the aid of a computer.)
>>>>>
In general, slide-projector lenses are garbage. I learned this many
years ago when I switched from a standard Kodak lens to one of their
wide-angle projection lenses which you weren't "supposed" to use for
standard projection. Not only was the image larger; it was sharper, too.
(Yes, _both_ at the same time.) A test with the Modern Photography test
slide confirmed this.
For over 20 years, I've been bugging Burt Keppler to test projector
lenses. He says there isn't enough interest to justify it. (Translation:
some lenses are so bad that one or more advertisers will be
embarrassed.)
I wouldn't mind spending $200 (or more) for a highly corrected projector
lens in a Carousel mount. Anybody know of one?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|