Interesting article on Russian lenses

[DonW]

And humorous too ...

https://www.leicalensesfornormalpeo...glass-russian-lenses-and-a-jupiter-5-do-over/

 

[reddesert]

I read this link and it gave me a headache. It's complaining about old husband's tales, while being full of old husband's tales.

The author keeps talking about "lens diagrams" as if a lens was literally represented by one of those cutaway line drawings with the shape of the elements. In fact a lens is built from a design with detailed numerical specifications for the curvature and position of the surfaces. The design is likely derived from a parent family (such as Tessar, Sonnar, double-Gauss), but the design has to be specifically computed for the types of glass used. So if you were to design a Sonnar lens with glasses sourced from Schott, and then you didn't have Schott glass and had to build a Sonnar type with glasses from another source that had slightly different indexes of refraction and dispersion, you would have to recompute the design. The little cutaway diagram would look similar, but there would be small, significant differences in the numbers.

So, when the glass changes, the lens design changes, but the differences may not be visible to the user. However, if there are batch-to-batch inconsistencies in the glass properties or in the mechanical assembly, that could cause variance in the finished lenses.

There is this persistent talk on camera forums as if Soviet-era designers and machinists were vodka-swilling incompetents whose only knowledge of optics was based on swiping some materials from Germany at the end of the war, and it's ridiculous. The mathematics of lens design was the same on both sides of the border. The implementation is different - nobody expects that Soviet era lenses had the quality control of Leica; the working conditions alone would have prevented this (along with the price of the finished product).

 

[drmoss_ca]

There is this persistent talk on camera forums as if Soviet-era designers and machinists were vodka-swilling incompetents whose only knowledge of optics was based on swiping some materials from Germany at the end of the war, and it's ridiculous.

I'd be willing to be a ray-tracing 'calculator' if I'm allowed to swill vodka on the job.
More seriously, the optics part of my physics A-level (back in 1976, such exams don't exist for British secondary school students anymore as they were too hard) involved delicious problems like 'design a telescope with these characteristics using only crown glass and flint glass, using no more than five elements'. It was hard, but fun, like a cryptic crossword. And we did not have to worry about correcting any kind of aberration, making it possible to answer a question like that in the allotted 15 minutes.

 

[250swb]

It's an article that's difficult to read. My take away from Russian lenses is I once bought a Lubitel 166 thinking it would be as bad as a Holga, but I was disappointed that the lens is actually quite good.

 

[btaylor]

I read the whole thing- I know nothing about how lenses are designed and made, it’s a complex science and engineering field. I don’t know where on the inter-webs these lens diagram mavens live, glad I don’t!
Russian camera lenses are an interesting puzzle. I don’t think I have had any manufactured before 1956, but I have had plenty that were made after that year. Some have been great! Super sharp and great performers (Jupiter 9, Helios 103), others less so. It’s always kind of a crap shoot. But that is part of the fun (for me anyway). He seems to push the Omnar 26mm f/6 fixed aperture M mount lens his friends are producing for a grand USD, personally I would rather have the Huss endorsed Russian Orion 15 28mm with an aperture for 1/3 the price.

 

[NB23]

Just another insecure dude on the internet trying to gain some fame by writing about Leica with the help of some name dropping.

Mind you, the names in question are just a bunch of other Leica insecure dudes that do the same. I am not including Skyllanney/Omnar in this, those guys are serious and experts. I am refering to the bloggers crowd.

Leica Bloggers: somekind of a insecure-Dudes-society.

 

[AgX]

First time I learn of an Omnar lens...

(I even got soviet listings on their lens designs, but one cannot read everything.)

 

[hashtagquack]

I think the takeaway is that the optical diagrams is not the sole contributor to a lens' performance. Inevitably what glass is available influences these diagrams and what parameters can be pushed. Kind of obvious really.

Re: Omnar lenses, I've had the pleasure of purchasing rebuilt lenses via Chris as well as having several esoteric RF lenses serviced to an incredibly high level by Chris. A very knowledgable individual especially with regards to Sonnar designs and optical mechanics in general. The Omnar is a collaborative effort but I understand Chris is pushing for new to market Sonnar based lens in the near future via Skyllaney. Somewhat unfair to refer to him as a "Leica insecure dude". I wonder if you would refer to Miyazaki in the same regard.

 

[NB23]

No, skyllaney and omnar are hugely great really. Huge respect to them.

i was refering to all the blog clowns.

 

[hashtagquack]

No, skyllaney and omnar are hugely great really. Huge respect to them.

i was refering to all the blog clowns.

Ah my apologies. I completely misunderstood. Yep I can totally agree with the reference blog clowns though

 

[DonW]

Man you guys are harsh! I guess it's to be expected here.

 

[NB23]

Man you guys are harsh! I guess it's to be expected here.

by here you mean the internet? Well yeah... but I’ve had enough of the leica bottom feeders, the so-called connoisseurs, the basement-expert Leica bloggers. Like, can they go blog about baseball caps or nike shoes, please, and leave the serious stuff alone?

 

[hashtagquack]

Man you guys are harsh! I guess it's to be expected here.

It all just seemed to be quite obvious, somewhat akin to writing an article arguing that compression is based on perspective and not a lens characteristic after being told by other internet photographers that "large format means more compression". Obvious but useful to some no doubt. Reading the about section of the website it seems that the article is suitable for the authors target demographic.

 

[btaylor]

"Lenses of an early 1950’s vintage are important to this story because lenses made with original Schott glass,in Germany, they brought to Russia. Essentially, these lenses are war-era Carl Zeiss Jena lenses that were confiscated by the Soviet Union in 1948 under the war reparations acute and subsequently made into early Russian camera lenses"

Does anyone in any level of authority really know if the Soviets transferred so much optical glass that they were using it up through the 1950's? I have seen this story repeated every time some blogger writes about Soviet lenses.

I can say that the Soviets had the glass needed to make outstanding optics. Soviet cinema anyone? I had a lot of FSU motion picture optics that were highly desired (mostly produced in the ‘80’s) especially on digital cinema cameras for their unique look.

 

[ruilourosa]

The commies designed and produced much more lenses and cameras than the capies from the other side of the pond
Vodka vs bourbon?
Just teasing hei

 

[Nodda Duma]

Reddesert I’m with you: That was exhausting to read, Setting aside the insults, his conclusion about the role of glass is one of the most obvious aspects of lens design, but then gets the deeper truths incorrect. It’s like he *almost* scratched the surface of the world of optical design but bounced off instead lol

I’ll indulge myself with one remark: Schott glass is no mystery (google schott glass) or magical (google ohara glass — a better product). I don’t know why he didn’t.

That aside..

I have spoken to Hamish and Chris about Omnar, and — while I can’t go into details due to confidentiality agreements — I can say that they know what they are doing and are going about it the right way.

- Jason

I'd be willing to be a ray-tracing 'calculator' if I'm allowed to swill vodka on the job.

funny story, I worked out a design one night after an undisclosed amount of drinking, and that design ultimately is fielded in a cutting edge system, with those optics favored by the end users for its high quality and simplicity. While it wasn’t vodka, dreams can come true.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

And humorous too ...

https://www.leicalensesfornormalpeo...glass-russian-lenses-and-a-jupiter-5-do-over/

He lost me at the spice girls.

 

[drmoss_ca]

He lost me at the spice girls.

I have never considered which Spice Girl I would be. The phenomenon of how we do not listen to new music after a certain age (~27 in my case) saved me from an awful lot of rubbish.

 

[flavio81]

I read this link and it gave me a headache. It's complaining about old husband's tales, while being full of old husband's tales.

The author keeps talking about "lens diagrams" as if a lens was literally represented by one of those cutaway line drawings with the shape of the elements. In fact a lens is built from a design with detailed numerical specifications for the curvature and position of the surfaces. The design is likely derived from a parent family (such as Tessar, Sonnar, double-Gauss), but the design has to be specifically computed for the types of glass used. So if you were to design a Sonnar lens with glasses sourced from Schott, and then you didn't have Schott glass and had to build a Sonnar type with glasses from another source that had slightly different indexes of refraction and dispersion, you would have to recompute the design. The little cutaway diagram would look similar, but there would be small, significant differences in the numbers.

So, when the glass changes, the lens design changes, but the differences may not be visible to the user. However, if there are batch-to-batch inconsistencies in the glass properties or in the mechanical assembly, that could cause variance in the finished lenses.

There is this persistent talk on camera forums as if Soviet-era designers and machinists were vodka-swilling incompetents whose only knowledge of optics was based on swiping some materials from Germany at the end of the war, and it's ridiculous. The mathematics of lens design was the same on both sides of the border. The implementation is different - nobody expects that Soviet era lenses had the quality control of Leica; the working conditions alone would have prevented this (along with the price of the finished product).

+1

I opened the link, the first two paragraphs were enough for me, after reading of course your and others' comments.

 

[DonW]

I guess the article hit a few nerves lol. And I'm sure this comment will too lol. To many take themselves to seriously it seems.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I guess the article hit a few nerves lol. And I'm sure this comment will too lol. To many take themselves to seriously it seems.

Lol.

Didn’t hit a nerve at all. Just too bad for him that he came so close to achieving some insight but missed.

 

[Dali]

I thought that early post WWII soviet lenses were made from Zeiss optics and their alleged higher polishing specifications made them more desirable than more recent ones but I can be wrong... Schott glass maybe but I suppose that Soviets too knew how to melt glass.

 

[henryvk]

Oof that was a painful read. I may have skipped quite a bit but is he basically saying that the Soviets didn't know how to make glass?

 

[reddesert]

I don't know what he is trying to say, but it seems like he wants to say that the Schott glass was the key part of Famous Rangefinder Lenses, and when the Soviets didn't have it their lenses were no good. But he seems to be under the impression that they would just keep on making the exact same design with different glass, which they couldn't possibly have done.

 

[DonW]

Isn't there a penalty for piling on lol. 15yards from your keyboard would do.