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

[markjwyatt]

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

Thank you. It is not quite as simple as I thought. I was thinking more of this type of pixel model, but this is more about electron wells than photon... https://cloudbreakoptics.com/blogs/news/astrophotography-pixel-by-pixel-part-1

This also illustrates it for a CMOS sensor: https://www.svs-vistek.com/svs-images/news/svs-newscont-pixel_with_microlens-id261-511.png (Article: https://www.svs-vistek.com/en/news/svs-news-article.php?p=shading-with-cmos-cameras), which indicates sensor design is used to improve this.

I wonder if that Nikkor lens is telecentric? I suspect not.

I think the point still stands that film is less sensitive to these effects than digital sensors, and modern engineering practice can compensate.

I am not trying to turn this into a digital vs. analog thread. But when the point is made that modern lenses are superior to older lenses, there are a number of reasons why that is the case, and some of those reasons apply to the necessity created by swapping film with digital sensors. Others of those reasons apply to both analog and digital photography. No doubt lenses have imporved. Materials have improved, coatings have improved, computational power is exponentially higher. For technical photography these improvements are enabling. For artisitic it may depend on the application whether it matters.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I have it on good authority that the modern lens designer is just as passionate and intuitive as those of the pre CAD generation, who, after the early 1940s, also used a computer to perform the ray tracing calculations to speed things up. The computer still doesn’t design the lens. That falls under the purview of the designer.

The ray acceptance angle of the modern sensor is determined by the following parameters:

Design of the microlens array on the sensor (main driver)
Cover plate AR coating design limitations (less important)
Thickness and distance of the cover plate (cause of chromatic aberrations when older lens are used)

The bayer filter mask is laid down (coated) directly on the silicon, and is essentially of zero thickness. As a coating, it has an acceptance angle as well, but is of lesser significance.

A design such as a 50 f/1.8 will have not remained the same for decades. In the 1990’s, the optical glass suppliers shifted away from the use of lead glass to lead-free glass. This required a redesign of any and all optics that was carried forward through that era. Not a major one, but they would have also been inherently improved due to the more advanced ray-tracing / optimization routines. This would have included a tolerance analysis to ensure more consistent unit-to-unit performance during a production run.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I don't doubt that ray-tracing by supercomputer is quicker, and probably more thorough, than that done by a roomful of people with pencil and paper, but the title is 'build quality' rather than 'optical quality'. So in pure terms of build quality, I'd have to place the Leica lenses I had on top, with the best from Japan coming in only just behind them - old metal Nikons and Olympus OM lenses. Of those three, the optimal ratio of price:quality is probably with the OM lenses. And if I were to be allowed to introduce a third factor - 'usability' then the Leica lenses would be relegated for their stiffness. I used to sit for hours with a new Summilux twisting the focus ring back and forth to try to work it into the smoothness I wanted. That's repetitive strain country. The OM lenses came out of the box with just the right resistance (or lack thereof) and the tactile sensation of the diamond-grid on the focus ring was lovely! The old Nikon lenses probably won the 'most imaginative use of coloured paint for the markings' award. Green, orange, red, yellow on lots of lenses. But pink? That's Nikon!

 

[Nodda Duma]

Build quality is not disconnected from the design — there is no luck or happenstance in such a technical product — as the tolerance analysis which informs alignment and fabrication tolerances is a critical exercise. You can’t shoot a computer model. That and the ability to perform a more thorough stray light analysis has been the greatest benefit from the use of the modern computer. Those aspects of the development of a lens as well as talking to the shops are the larger effort.

Regarding build quality, the designer ensures the capability of the shops are sufficient and works with the production team to ensure they build them correctly.
Once that handoff occurs, build quality is determined by other non-technical considerations (cost, schedule, reputation, etc)


Point is, it’s not as separate a topic from design as you are assuming.

 

[Paul Howell]

, I'd have to place the Leica lenses I had on top, with the best from Japan coming in only just behind them - old metal Nikons and Olympus OM lenses. Of those three, the optimal ratio of price:quality is probably with the OM lenses.


In terms of both optical and build quality, legacy lens, my vote would go to Swiss Alpa, although they did not design or build lens for the Alpa bodies they picked from the best available, Schneider, Kern, Delft, Angenieux, Zoomare, took each apart, rebuilt it, calibrated and test with glass plates which Alpa kept on hand if a lens was returned for maintenance. The Swiss Kern 50mm macro is perhaps the best normal manual focus lens made, so good that Leica owners had them converted for rangefinder. For modern my vote for Sigma A lens.

 

[AgX]

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.

This is a good point. My experience as FD guy practically ends in the 80s. With two Adaptall lenses from the late 90's.
And no AF lenses...

 

[Paul Howell]

I have lens dating from the 30s to current Sigma Art lens and a couple of Sony in A mount, I have Pentax, Konica, Kowa, Petri, Minolta MC/D and AF A mount, along with a brace of M42 lens last made in the 80s all 35mm. I think it is very difficult not a fair comparison to compare say non Nikon AI with Nikon G, or Pentax M42 with Pentax AF, lens or cameras can only be fairly compared with lens and bodies from the same generation.

 

[film_man]

I have lens dating from the 30s to current Sigma Art lens and a couple of Sony in A mount, I have Pentax, Konica, Kowa, Petri, Minolta MC/D and AF A mount, along with a brace of M42 lens last made in the 80s all 35mm. I think it is very difficult not a fair comparison to compare say non Nikon AI with Nikon G, or Pentax M42 with Pentax AF, lens or cameras can only be fairly compared with lens and bodies from the same generation.

Indeed, it is "unfair" and non-sensical to compare a manual lens vs an autofocus lens. You can't really build an autofocus lens like a manual one (but see my point below on Leica SL). You can build the other way, a manual lens like you do an autofocus one but that invariably ends up feeling and working like a cheap piece of junk. Have a look at Zeiss and Voigtlander (ie the same company...), the still build modern manual SLR lenses. They are big and heavy and metal and feel great and have modern optics. The only manufacturer that builds AF lenses as like they built manual lenses in the 70s is Leica, just go and have a look at the SL lenses, they are universally aclaimed as marvels of engineering and optical performance, then look at the price tag and walk backwards slowly (I wish I could afford them really).

Fuji is half way there too, their X line lenses vary from the plastic fantastic to substantial metal ones with aperture rings and manual focus rings, still with autofocs capabilities. They are really nice actually given the price point, generally exceptional performance and the fact they can still auto focus really well. Manual focus is of course not as nice as an old manual lens but it is still good and accurate.

 

[Pioneer]

This is all very interesting theoretically, but to be truthful the limitation in my photography is not the lens, no matter how old they might be. My little, collapsible Elmar 50/3.5 from the 1930s still provides stunning images when I do my part the way I should.

As far as build quality is concerned, the fact that this lens

• still extends and locks in proper alignment,
• the aperture ring accurately rotates to the correct opening,
• the lens elements are held securely and properly centered within the barrel
• so the smoothly moving helical can ensure accurate focus,
• and does all of this day after day even though it is soon to celebrate its' 89th birthday,

still blows my mind. The fact that it has a bit of "character" after all this time is certainly forgivable.

And this does not just hold true for Leica. I have Zeiss, Bausch & Lomb and Kodak lenses that are even older that still provide amazing photographs even after passing the century mark.

Perhaps I will be forgiven if I beg to wait a few decades to see if the build quality of all these modern lenses stands the test of time in similar fashion.

 

[Paul Howell]

Modern lens will not last, AF lens, the integrated circuit or chips will fail, motors will burn out without replacement parts, who knows. I've had a few AF kit lens fail, so far my Minolta G and higher end Sigma are holding up, for how long?

 

[Paul Howell]

As I thought about my post, I want to be clear that just because my Argus 33 will likely be functional while by Minolta 9 will be non functional in 30 years, does not mean that the Argus is a better lens, it's not. While a Ford model A will likely still be functional in 50 years, if you can still find gas, it is a better car than a 2021 Tesla, no not all. Comparing the 2 is a false comparison.

 

[Pioneer]

Guess it depends on what you value most in your photography gear.

 

[Craig75]

Modern does not equal af. There are plenty mf new lenses out there and designs inconceivable in previous times.

 

[Paul Howell]

Modern does not equal af. There are plenty mf new lenses out there and designs inconceivable in previous times.

True, some do not have any electronic built in for aperture priory or program mode functioning, as this thread is in 35mm I assume we are not discussing MF or LF lens.

 

[Craig75]

True, some do not have any electronic built in for aperture priory or program mode functioning, as this thread is in 35mm I assume we are not discussing MF or LF lens.

Ahh sorry meant mf as in manual focus not medium format. My lazy typing

 

[Kino]

As I thought about my post, I want to be clear that just because my Argus 33 will likely be functional while by Minolta 9 will be non functional in 30 years, does not mean that the Argus is a better lens, it's not. While a Ford model A will likely still be functional in 50 years, if you can still find gas, it is a better car than a 2021 Tesla, no not all. Comparing the 2 is a false comparison.

LOL, yes, Henry Ford can't disable your car or deny "super charging" remotely from his heavenly abode like Elon Musk can!

 

[Huss]

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

No. That just happens to be the lens you have. But if the best lens also happens to be the lens that is on your camera, then you are set.

 

[Craig75]

Which vermin leave the house without at the bare minimum an alsaflex, a gamma, two other systems and 8 lenses

 

[film_man]

The Internet tells me that a lot of photographers value WEIGHT. The more the better. Metal for everything.

Yes but it has to be the right kind of metal. I hear brass is the one to have, not these hipster modern materials called aluminium and stainless steel. Glass is glass I guess but it isn't, we all know the best lenses use lead or radioactive coatings. Anything modern (ie made after the individual poster reaches their 60th birthday) degrades the smoothness, feeling, aura and longevity of the item plus is responsible for killing dolphins, hungry children in Africa, solar flares and probably causing covid-19 too.

 

[AgX]

Glass is glass I guess but it isn't, we all know the best lenses use lead or radioactive coatings.

To my understanding radioactive lens coatings were only used in laser-optics, not in general photo-optics. You likely mix it up with a lens element itself being radioactive.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes but it has to be the right kind of metal. I hear brass is the one to have, not these hipster modern materials called aluminium and stainless steel. Glass is glass I guess but it isn't, we all know the best lenses use lead or radioactive coatings. Anything modern (ie made after the individual poster reaches their 60th birthday) degrades the smoothness, feeling, aura and longevity of the item plus is responsible for killing dolphins, hungry children in Africa, solar flares and probably causing covid-19 too.

You have it all wrong. We love those newer lenses!

Unfortunately they rarely fit on our favorite cameras which we could not afford to buy when they were new...and now cannot afford to fix when they have become inexpensive enough for us to buy!!

(Now where did I leave my copy of Catch-22)

 

[benjiboy]

The radio active elements in lenses were not " coatings ", they were in the mix of the actual glass.

You have it all wrong. We love those newer lenses!

Unfortunately they rarely fit on our favorite cameras which we could not afford to buy when they were new...and now cannot afford to fix when they have become inexpensive enough for us to buy!!

(Now where did I leave my copy of Catch-22)

 

[film_man]

we could not afford to buy when they were new...and now cannot afford to fix when they have become inexpensive enough for us to buy!!

Yup...that. Sums up classic cameras and cars.

 

[Nodda Duma]

The radio active elements in lenses were not " coatings ", they were in the mix of the actual glass.

Not always true. Thorium was used quite extensively in coating material, even if the underlying glass was not thorium-doped.

 

[madNbad]

I a big fan of older Nikon lenses. Solidly built and even after fifty or more years, a good cleaning and lubrication gives them a new life. In 2019, I had been camera scanning my negatives for about a year. I started with a Sony A6000, bought a beat up A5100 to leave on the copy stand and all was good till I decided to move up to full frame. KEH had a 20% offer adding to any Sony trade in, the idea was send everything off and get a A7. Just after I shipped the Sony's to KEH, B&H had an offer for a brand new A7II for $899. Bought the A7II and ended up with a substantial credit from KEH. Not owning any native lenses for the Sony, I decided to look around and see what I could find. I ended up with a Zeiss 35 2.0 Loxia and was amazed at the build quality. A modern all metal manual focus lens with just enough electronics to kick in the magnifier when starting to focus and send data to the camera. They are mostly designed for video and come with a declick tool. All the lenses in the line take 52mm filters. Even the lens hoods are metal! So, both my M4 and the Sony use Cosina lenses, they're well made and a bargain.