And humorous too ...
https://www.leicalensesfornormalpeo...glass-russian-lenses-and-a-jupiter-5-do-over/
https://www.leicalensesfornormalpeo...glass-russian-lenses-and-a-jupiter-5-do-over/
Last edited:
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.
No, skyllaney and omnar are hugely great really. Huge respect to them.
i was refering to all the blog clowns.
Man you guys are harsh! I guess it's to be expected here.
Man you guys are harsh! I guess it's to be expected here.
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."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'd be willing to be a ray-tracing 'calculator' if I'm allowed to swill vodka on the job.
He lost me at the spice girls.
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).
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?