Lens build quality over time, and which are/were best?

[Paul Howell]

In terms of my Legacy lens I would rate Konica near the top, even the later Hextar the economy line were well built.

 

[benjiboy]

For example, I have a Vivitar 70-210mm Series I AI f/3.5 manual focus zoom lens that I replaced with a Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 D auto focus zoom lens. However, when the auto focus motor in the Nikkor died the manual focus feature also died. Rather than fixing my Nikkor, I just put it on the shelf and went back to using my old reliable Vivitar zoom.

Please stop shouting.

 

[Pieter12]

Leica. I've been shooting their R lenses on Nikons for eons, and the build quality is like something from NASA, or as a friend said, BETTER than NASA! No complaints on the image quality either. Beautiful bokeh, just a step up from anything I have ever used. Images, especially w/ the 90 Elmarit and Summicron, look pretty amazing close up if you catch the light right, and there is no better 35mm portrait lens than the 90 2 Summicron. Same goes for their RF lenses, which makes sense as many of their R lenses were the same optical designs as the RF lenses. I think Nikon did this as well.

A lot of lens makers had one lens that was their signature lens. Leica probably has a dozen or more. When you pick up one of the R lenses, it feels like a solid block of glass and metal, which it is. If you want the highest quality and the best optics, Leitz/Leica is at the top of the pyramid and has been for a long, long time. Fortunately, I like the lower priced SLR lenses, not the fancy APO things.

Unfortunately, although the optical quality of Leica lenses is superb, their implementation of modern electronics is not. The initial runs of autofocus lenses for the big S camera had a reputation of having the autofocus motors going out, to the point where a number of dealers would only sell a used lens if it had the motor replaced. Also, I have owned a couple of Nikon lenses from the 60's that developed problems. One, a 50mm f2, lost the f-stop detents, the ring would turn freely. Making intermediate stops easy to set, but aggravating nonetheless. Another, a 50mm f1.4 did the opposite--the aperture ring became quite stiff, and my local camera tech couldn't repair it. As a matter of fact, he suggested just looking for another one.

 

[narsuitus]

Please stop shouting.

I am not shouting.

For some reason, either my word processor or this website or both are altering my messages and not allowing me to remove the bold or reduce the font size.

If I type my message directly on this website, I do not have a problem. The problem only occurs when I type my message on my word processor and then cut and paste to the website.

 

[MattKing]

I am not shouting.

For some reason, either my word processor or this website or both are altering my messages and not allowing me to remove the bold or reduce the font size.

If I type my message directly on this website, I do not have a problem. The problem only occurs when I type my message on my word processor and then cut and paste to the website.

If you are working in Windows, try pasting using Ctrl-Shift V.

 

[reddesert]

And Command-Shift-V on Mac. You want "paste without formatting."

To the subject of the quoted post, if it was an 80-200 AF D lens I'm a little surprised that the death of the auto focus disabled manual focus. An AF D lens usually doesn't have a motor and relies on the camera focus motor. Even Nikon AF-S lenses, which do have a focus motor in the lens, can usually be focused manually with the ring - they can be focused even with a body that doesn't power the lens (although aperture control is another issue). Perhaps the focusing mechanism is actually jammed and that's what made it look like auto and manual focus died?

 

[4season]

I recently serviced a pre-AI 105/2.5 and AI-s 50/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. Both have lovely build quality, and the use of a simple flat spring rather than tiny ball bearing as aperture clicker is much appreciated! Besides being one less thing to lose in the shag carpeting, this design detail also spreads it's force over a much larger area versus spring loaded BB, so you'd have to cycle it an awful lot before creating a wear groove. The latter lens isn't entirely trouble-free though: I think Nikon tried using a lighter, less-viscous grease on it's multiple focusing helicoids, but that grease seems to have problems with either drying out or migrating where it shouldn't, which is how I managed to score a nice lens so cheaply.

My one experience servicing Pentax glass to date left me underwhelmed, but I hope that the 50/2 SMC Pentax-A was just a outlier: Rough, notchy aperture ring, maybe due to aged/worn plastics, Optically meh but alright if stopped down far enough. I speculate that the target user for the lens was expected to leave the aperture ring locked in "A".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi all,

I found myself wondering about something that I thought might be fun to discuss: which lenses had the best build quality (NOT optical quality)?

From my own experience, I remember picking up a Pentax SV with a bunch of Takumars and being really impressed by their build. Metal construction, smooth focusing, reassuring weight. Also radioactive, partly, of course, but that's a separate matter.

I then switched to a Pentax K1000 followed by an MX and remember being disappointed by the K-mount lens I had for it (I think it was the 50/1.7?). Sure the build wasn't terrible but it was definitely a step down compared to the Takumars.

Right now I have a Minolta XE-7 with a MD Rokkor-X 50/1.7. The Rokkor is quite nice, almost as good as the Takumar, but the focusing isn't quite as smooth and some parts of it (like the aperture ring) feel just a little bit imperfect.

I'd be curious how you think other manufacturers compare. I've heard good things about FD-mount Canon glass, especially the earlier versions. I'm also really curious how Nikon AI lenses handle. In general, it seems build took a nosedive in the autofocus era, moving to using much more plastic. But the decline probably started earlier than that, e.g. the K-mount lens I was using probably came out in the 80s.

I'd love to hear your experience. I suspect some answers won't be surprising -- presumably some of the pricey Leica/Carl Zeiss lenses have build quality to match -- but I'd be especially interested in lenses that were surprisingly well built given their price.

I think Nikon's AI lenses were about the peak of their built-quality and I still have bunch of them and will keep them because, they are top built and optical-quality wise. that said, I can not find anything wrong with newer Nikon lenses either.

 

[RDW]

And Command-Shift-V on Mac. You want "paste without formatting."

To the subject of the quoted post, if it was an 80-200 AF D lens I'm a little surprised that the death of the auto focus disabled manual focus. An AF D lens usually doesn't have a motor and relies on the camera focus motor. Even Nikon AF-S lenses, which do have a focus motor in the lens, can usually be focused manually with the ring - they can be focused even with a body that doesn't power the lens (although aperture control is another issue). Perhaps the focusing mechanism is actually jammed and that's what made it look like auto and manual focus died?

The lens that's usually called the 'AF-D' is the AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 D. It doesn't have a motor, but it does have an A/M switch ring that's prone to cracking. The next one is offically the AF-S Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 D (AF-S lenses are also 'D', which means they have distance chips, but 'D' is not always part of the name). This one has an early AF-S motor that has been known to die, especially if it develops a squeak.

On the question of subjective build quality, the Nikon AI/AI-S lenses are very good, but I think the better autofocus lenses like the 24-70 2.8 G and the DC 105 are up there. The shorter AF and AF-S primes and the cheaper zooms are not in the same league. I have a scalloped AI-converted 24mm that's nicer than the average AI, so perhaps the pre-AI era was Nikon's high point for build quality. Mandler-era Leica lenses are a further step up, and a bit nicer than my more recent 35 f/2 ASPH. My Leica Summitar is maybe the nicest of all, a little chromed brass jewel.

 

[film_man]

If something has good build quality it means it can take abuse and not break down. If something works smoothly it means it is well designed but may not necessarily last. For example, I'd say any AI Nikkor has good build quality. It is unlikely to break if abused. However I really dislike the notchy aperture ring. Every AI lens I've ever had is nowhere near refined when it comes to the aperture as anything in Leica M land.

Then if you look at AF lenses, Nikkor AFD lenses for example, they are generally solid pieces of work. Focus is rough but they're not really meant to be focused like that. So is that a detriment? Will they last as well as an AI lens? Probably not but they do have to do a lot more things.

My pastic fantastic Canon EOS 300 has survived countless falls, bumps and abuse. It works just like it did on day one with zero maintenance. I'd say that is a well built machine. Most people here though would rate it as a plastic p.o.s. that was not build well. Why? Then we go to the F3. Mine took quite a bit of abuse. Worked fine to the point it was bent out of shape. Sent it for service, went on working fine. So that's well built. Refined it is not though. If you want refined...I had 3 Hasselblads. They are generally held in very high praise. But to me they are crappy cameras that look and handle nice. The smallest of bumps would send them to a spasms of jamming. My EL kept failing after each repair.

What is "well built" anyway? People seem to conflate build quality with what it feels, which are two very different things.

 

[George Mann]

What is "well built" anyway?

A Nikon F2.

 

[Craig75]

I would have thought a fully weather sealed modern lens packed full of exotic lens elements is going to wipe the floor with a big hunk.of metal from 70s in both image quality and build

 

[Pioneer]

I would have thought a fully weather sealed modern lens packed full of exotic lens elements is going to wipe the floor with a big hunk.of metal from 70s in both image quality and build

You would think...

I am very fond of my Pentax FA Limited glass but even those lenses would not be considered modern today.

 

[Bazza D]

50/2 SMC Pentax-A was just a outlier: Rough, notchy aperture ring

It is the Pentax-A lenses. Every one that I have used has the same crappy aperture ring . The picture quality is the same as the Pentax-M but the Pentax-A has a plastic aperture ring. It gets notchy, as you described it. Also, I had one get completely stuck. I like the Pentax M much better. Right now I am uses a Sears branded Ricoh K-mount lens. I generally use my Pentax-M 50mm F1.7. I have gotten used to the half stops and the aperture goes to 22, which is double 11. But when I have used Ricoh lenses, I like the pictures as much or better than Pentax. I am struggling with the fact that I like the pictures better with the Sears lens. However, I like using the Pentax lens better than the Sears.

 

[reddesert]

I would have thought a fully weather sealed modern lens packed full of exotic lens elements is going to wipe the floor with a big hunk.of metal from 70s in both image quality and build

When people talk about "build quality" here I think they're talking about how it feels in the hand. A manual focus lens with a heavy, damped focusing ring may feel more "quality" than an auto focus lens with the undamped lighter ring needed for turning by a tiny motor. But they both might be high quality, if you define quality as suitability for purpose.

Image quality is a different axis of "improvement." Good prime lenses from the 70s-80s are mostly "good enough." Take a typical lens like a 50/1.8 or 100/2.8, the improvements made to later generations are probably mostly for ease of construction and lowering price, like the example of the 50/1.8 series E that Nodda Duma gave. There's no real need for exotic glass or molded aspheres in it.

But a recent zoom (or ultrafast lens) vs a zoom from the 70s is another story. I imagine something like the humble, highly retrofocus, good image quality kit zooms of the 90s-00s (like the 28-80mm for full frame or 18-55mm for APS-C) would be difficult or impossible to build with 70s design and technology, much less build and retail for a hundred dollars.

 

[4season]

I would have thought a fully weather sealed modern lens packed full of exotic lens elements is going to wipe the floor with a big hunk.of metal from 70s in both image quality and build

But this is supposed to be a discussion on the best way to build a lens as judged by a bunch of guys who aren't lens designers You know, rhetorical engineering.

 

[George Mann]

rhetorical engineering.

That's often where designs start.

 

[film_man]

But this is supposed to be a discussion on the best way to build a lens as judged by a bunch of guys who aren't lens designers You know, rhetorical engineering.

I think another problem in this forum is that most people's knowledge and first hand experience of lenses tapers of to somewhere around late 80s at best. In Nikon-land that means AFD or early AFS vs AI which is hardly an indication of what has happened in the next 30 years of lens evolution. Most people have never touched an F6 or F5, they just parrot what they hear from others vs their ancient F2 or whatever. I don't know if modern lenses are cheaply built, for sure my Nikon 58/1.4G felt nowhere near as nice to fondle as the 50/1.2 AIS it replaced but the optics are on another level and of course it does the focusing for you. Yeah yeah good enough and all that but then again a mid-range camera phone is good enough for 99.99% of the worlds photography needs and costs a lot less than cameras and film and processing.

 

[4season]

I think another problem in this forum is that most people's knowledge and first hand experience of lenses tapers of to somewhere around late 80s at best.

For commentary on what top-quality modern lenses look like inside, I turn to Roger Cicala's Lensrental lens teardown blog postings. And I suspect that even if you could, you wouldn't want to (or more likely, couldn't) replace those precision-cast composite parts with machined brass or aluminum.

 

[markjwyatt]

A Nikon F2.

How about an Exakta VX (with possible exception of teh shutter material, but i think this may be ok by the VX)?

 

[markjwyatt]

For commentary on what top-quality modern lenses look like inside, I turn to Roger Cicala's Lensrental lens teardown blog postings. ...

That is pretty amazing. It is clear why such a lens is so expensive.

For film it is not likely to need so many elements, nor such large elements to get a good image.

1. From what I gather, digital sensors have pixels that are photon wells (meaning the pixel diagonla is much smaller than the pixel depth). The consequence of this is that rays eminating out the lens rear ekement need to be nearly colimated before striking teh sensor. What this means is that digital sensor lenses require additional constraints that film lenses do not, so require additional and I suspect larger diameter glass internal lenses.
2. This applies to mnodern digital and film lenses: modern computaitonal power is so much greater than what was avaliable in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s (and 90s) that much mmore accurate ray tracing can be done, and many secondary (and even tertirary perhaps) optical effects can be corrected. This means more lens elements also.

FInally, one benefit of modern lenses is availibility of advanced and much more effective coating technologies so all the additional lenses do not kill your contrast. One advantage of older film lenses is that they did not require "1" or the advanced coatings (though the coatings could still help them). For non-technical photography, "2" may not be that important.

 

[DonW]

If you are standing in front of something really stunning, the BEST lens is the one on your camera.

 

[film_man]

That is pretty amazing. It is clear why such a lens is so expensive.

For film it is not likely to need so many elements, nor such large elements to get a good image.

1. From what I gather, digital sensors have pixels that are photon wells (meaning the pixel diagonla is much smaller than the pixel depth). The consequence of this is that rays eminating out the lens rear ekement need to be nearly colimated before striking teh sensor. What this means is that digital sensor lenses require additional constraints that film lenses do not, so require additional and I suspect larger diameter glass internal lenses.
2. This applies to mnodern digital and film lenses: modern computaitonal power is so much greater than what was avaliable in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s (and 90s) that much mmore accurate ray tracing can be done, and many secondary (and even tertirary perhaps) optical effects can be corrected. This means more lens elements also.

FInally, one benefit of modern lenses is availibility of advanced and much more effective coating technologies so all the additional lenses do not kill your contrast. One advantage of older film lenses is that they did not require "1" or the advanced coatings (though the coatings could still help them). For non-technical photography, "2" may not be that important.

The angle issue is generally relevant in wide angle lenses, especially rangefinder lenses that are adapter to mirrorless. Telephotos do not suffer from this. But in any case, newer lenses do show improvement on film. You get better colour, better contrast, better flare resistance, higher sharpness. The glass is better, the coatings are better, the tolerances are tighter, everything is better. And in most cases it shows in any competent scan or reasonably sized print. And yes, older lenses have "character", but that is generally a function of their limitations.

Film technology has progressed since the 70s too, maybe not as much as lens design but the benefits of that are visible. The Portra 400 of today is miles better than anything from the 90s.

 

[George Mann]

How about an Exakta VX (with possible exception of teh shutter material, but i think this may be ok by the VX)?

I am not familiar with it.

 

[reddesert]

That is pretty amazing. It is clear why such a lens is so expensive.

For film it is not likely to need so many elements, nor such large elements to get a good image.

1. From what I gather, digital sensors have pixels that are photon wells (meaning the pixel diagonla is much smaller than the pixel depth). The consequence of this is that rays eminating out the lens rear ekement need to be nearly colimated before striking teh sensor. What this means is that digital sensor lenses require additional constraints that film lenses do not, so require additional and I suspect larger diameter glass internal lenses.
2. This applies to mnodern digital and film lenses: modern computaitonal power is so much greater than what was avaliable in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s (and 90s) that much mmore accurate ray tracing can be done, and many secondary (and even tertirary perhaps) optical effects can be corrected. This means more lens elements also.

FInally, one benefit of modern lenses is availibility of advanced and much more effective coating technologies so all the additional lenses do not kill your contrast. One advantage of older film lenses is that they did not require "1" or the advanced coatings (though the coatings could still help them). For non-technical photography, "2" may not be that important.

The word that describes what you're talking about in point 1 is "telecentricity" (not collimation), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentric_lens#Image-space_telecentric_lenses The detectors used in digital cameras are more sensitive / have fewer artifacts when light is incident near - normal to the detector and not at a glancing angle. Film doesn't care as much. It is not clear to me how much of this is due to a surface effect in the detector and how much is the Bayer color filter array. I think a lot of it might be the filter array, because this is related to why some lenses have more purple fringes. Anyway, as film_man said, it's worst for lenses very close to the film, like RF lenses on mirrorless. Even old wide angle lenses on SLRs have to be retrofocus, so they're closer to telecentric already and suffer less from this issue.

Optical design has indeed advanced greatly since the 1970s, but even then they were using computer optimization. In the lensrentals blog linked above, the lens they disassemble is a Canon RF 100-500/4.7-7.1 with autofocus, internal focus, and image stabilization, and uses 20 elements in 14 groups, including 6 low dispersion elements and 1 "super-ultra-low dispersion." Obviously, such a lens would be unthinkable in the 70s, and I'm sure it performs much better than the monster-size super telezooms of the late 70s or so. Interestingly, though, I think it's still the same basic zoom design of roughly 4 moving groups - shown in https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/#zoom

But if you look at today's 50mm/1.8 lens, it's not really that different from a 50mm/1.8 lens of the 70s, 6-elements based on a double Gauss. It doesn't need to be grossly different; maybe the latest version is slightly improved, but same general design. The people who designed those lenses in the 70s had an intuitive understanding of how to optimize a design, in addition to computer programs that look primitive now but were advanced for their day. A post like this from the Nikkor "Thousand and One Nights" gives some non-technical insight into their process: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0060/index.htm