Does anyone here beleive that Nikon/Canon could make lenses as good as Leica/Zeiss?

[chip j]

michael the solar ( capital s ) enlarger i mentioned used frosted glass bulbs and
a dome above the enlarger that was coated with some sort of white diffusion material
which gave a unique look. i'll never forget when i apprenticed the lady who had that enlarger, she
had some sort of condensor enlarger next to it and suggested i use it to make contact prints / proof sheets
and soon after she said go back to the solar, the light makes the portraits look better ...
not sure if this is what chip j meant but if the internal illumination mechanism of the 3nlargers he mentions
are something like that, then ... maybe he is right, otherwise an enlarger is just a projection box ... and as long
as the lsn't a meniscus or verito or soft focus portrait lens enlarger lenses are kind of the same stopped down a couple of clicks ..

then again i could be wrong

Many old Leitz enlarger heads are painted inside w/a special silver paint that gives a long tonal scale.

 

[Ian Grant]

A difference maybe but is it related to overall optical quality (assembly, lens polish, coating,...) or only from optical features from designer's requirements (resolution vs contrast, residual aberration, vignetting,...)? Said differently, is "different" meaning better or worse or just... different?

It's about totally different design criteria, ver so simple. They aren't the same so don't expect the same results, and one isn't better than the other it's personal choice when you CAN see the differences.

Ian

 

[chip j]

Sure they can and have. What focal length and attributes are you comparing? IMO it's kind of a dumb question. I've seen images from an old 50mm f2 HC nikkor that were better than a Summicron. There are so many factors here, distance, subject matter/ flatness of field, lighting, sensor/film resolution, vibration, etc.
You need to be very specific here.

I was calling attention to the fact that an earlier post said that enlargers were all the same, Just a "box with a light and a hole in it"; so by that criteria cameras are all the same too-just a box with a hole in it.

 

[benveniste]

It's been said that the E series Nikon lenses are optically the same as Nikkors, built less expensively, but still better built than contemporary Nikon lenses.

I can't speak to what's "been said," but only two of the E series lenses were optically the same as Nikkors, and in both cases the Nikkors came later.

• The optics of the 28mm f/2.8E were recycled into the non-D version of the 28mm f/2.8 AF-Nikkor.
• Nikon never made a 35mm f/2.5 Nikkor in any form.
• The 50mm f/1.8 Series E was Nikon's only design with 6 element/5 group design to use single-coated elements instead of NIC/SIC.
• The 100mm f/2.8E was Nikon's only 100mm lens. (Again single-coated elements).
• The 135mm f/2.8E was a 4-element design. All the 135mm f/2.8 Nikkors are 5 element designs.
• The 36-72mm f/3.5E was an 8-element design. The 35-70mm f/3.5 Nikkors were 10 element designs.
• The 75-150mm f/3.5 was never produced as a Nikkor, despite requests from pros to do so.
• The optics of the 70-210mm f/4E were recycled into the 70-210mm f/4 AF-Nikkor. The optics differed only slightly from the 80-200mm f/4 AI-s.

Build quality is a different issue. These lenses used more metal in their construction than most modern lenses of the same focal length. Nor do I recall hearing about more sample variation in "E" lenses than Nikkors. However, both the 75-150mm and 70-210mm zooms used a felt strip to dampen the zoom action. It wore out very quickly with use, with the result that the zooms would "creep" at even modest angles away from horizontal. At greater angles, "creep" is inadequate; "slide" or even "race" are better descriptions.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I was calling attention to the fact that an earlier post said that enlargers were all the same, Just a "box with a light and a hole in it"; so by that criteria cameras are all the same too-just a box with a hole in it.

For the most part... yes, that's correct.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Computers cant design lenses , the amount of possibility exceeds the capacity of all computers of the world works billion of years.
Do you think the level of physics and mathematics knowledge of germany when year of 1905 , ever been surpassed by america at year 2016 ? may be 300 years later, ding dong

 

[fstop]

If you want to be "fair" then a camera is just a box w/a
hole in it. How can there be any differences between them?

Better quality boxes and better quality holes.

 

[chip j]

And better quality light systems.

 

[Dali]

Computers cant design lenses , the amount of possibility exceeds the capacity of all computers of the world works billion of years.
Do you think the level of physics and mathematics knowledge of germany when year of 1905 , ever been surpassed by america at year 2016 ? may be 300 years later, ding dong

Ah! The Gish Gallop at work....

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Computers cant design lenses , the amount of possibility exceeds the capacity of all computers of the world works billion of years.
Do you think the level of physics and mathematics knowledge of germany when year of 1905 , ever been surpassed by america at year 2016 ? may be 300 years later, ding dong

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

think , you want to design a noctilux with your intelligent computer. there are may be 14 surfaces , 7 glasses. For each curve , you must have 7 digit sensivity. you must have 7 thickness also. 7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7

if i calculated correctly there is 700000 trillion of possibilities

and add 7 distances.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

think , you want to design a noctilux with your intelligent computer. there are may be 14 surfaces , 7 glasses. For each curve , you must have 7 digit sensivity. you must have 7 thickness also. 7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7

if i calculated correctly there is 700000 trillion of possibilities

and add 7 distances.

So lens design is more about luck or magic than physics and mathematics?? Or perhaps your stating that the human brain has greater resolving power than any computer? The ability to think in the abstract and formulate... yes. The ability to calculate... no.

 

[chip j]

Computers cant design lenses , the amount of possibility exceeds the capacity of all computers of the world works billion of years.
Do you think the level of physics and mathematics knowledge of germany when year of 1905 , ever been surpassed by america at year 2016 ? may be 300 years later, ding dong

+1000, Umut!

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I think japan and germany might have different routes to culture. In germany , culture means , reaching to the excellence , I think in japan , its about reach to the excellence with shortest most basic way. Look at martial arts , they teach the easiest , fastest way to kill a man , their swords are shortest way to again kill a man , architecture , industrial design are again the shortest way to reach success. Its about minimalism , but with minimal move.

Lets talk about science , leitz uses wave theory for 80 years , nikon started to use it at 2014. Research my last words.

by the way, germany produces paintings , sculpture , cathedrals for last 1300 years. Leitz uses 3d transfer function to place all high art knowledge in to their lenses , you cant take same portrait with any other lens .

mathematics and physics and mechanical engineering...

 

[jimjm]

Thank you for providing that detailed information. My knowledge of the E-series is almost nothing.

As to "what's been said"... I think I paid too much attention to a certain K** R***.

Don't discount the image quality of some of the E-series lenses, either. They were obviously offered to appeal to a lower price-point, but definitely have some advantages. I have the 50/1.8 and it's a tiny, lightweight lens that gives great results.

Also, the 75-150/3.5 zoom is very small for it's range and speed and I have read that it was a popular lens among fashion photographers back in the 80's. Performance-wise, it's just as good as many of the other AI/AIS Nikon zooms from that time.

Of course, the build quality of Series E was not equal to the AI/AIS lenses, but they're not junk either. Most had single instead of multi-coating and no rabbit ears for coupling to older bodies.

Galen Rowell's shot of the Rainbow Over Potala Palace was taken with the 75-150 and a Nikon (F3 or FE/FM?) body after he ran several miles to get the light at just the right moment. Sometimes having lighter gear (or the right gear) will get you in situations where you get the shot. A good photo is less dependent on the sharpness/name/reputation of your equipment, than it is on knowing how to use it and having a good eye.

 

[bernard_L]

I (...) have taken many GREAT pictures over 50 yrs, a fair number of which most of you wouldn't appreciate
...
No need for me to explain it all on this forum.

You should create a new forum just for yourself, where you could truly appreciate your photos.

 

[Leigh B]

if i calculated correctly there is 700000 trillion of possibilities

And 99.999999% of those can be eliminated based on the first basic set of design parameters for any new lens.

You select an area of coverage, a focal length and speed (max aperture).

- Leigh

 

[removed account4]

If you want to be "fair" then a camera is just a box w/a
hole in it. How can there be any differences between them?

there really isn't much differnce between them except for how "fancy" they are and "branding"

its like claiming there are massive differnces between 9 volt batteries.
some are alkaline, some are lead, some have pretty logos, but in the end
they are just a 9 volt battery. i am guessing if i had a zeiss adapter for my pentax k1000
and stuck whatever lens it is that is "prized" it would make the exact same photograph
as it would on the contax or whatever lens it usually used on.
getting back to 35mm bodies .. some feel better to hold, have fancy dials, are light,
have different doc-dads like aperture or shutter priority or an internal light meter but
its just a box that controls light ... i hate to put you on the spot asking you this, chip j
but what makes cameras so different ?