old glass ever better then new?

[Pioneer]

Newer lenses that lack manually adjustable apertures aren't very good at all on cameras that don't have the capability of adjusting aperatures electronically.

Fortunately there are still a few lens makers that are making manual lenses with lens controls kept on the lens itself. Hopefully the film renaissance will ensure that this continues, but as many of the current digital camera manufacturers press on into the digital world their products will not be usable in the analogue one. That is unfortunate but those companies are more interested in having you buy their new products, not in you continuing to use their outdated ones, no matter how good they may be.

 

[ciniframe]

With me it is not about 'old' lenses vs current lenses. It is "what can I get for ten to twenty dollars", and that is usually old lenses. Minor digression, I consider Vivitar Series 1 as those dang newfangled lenses, it's funny how your perception of time changes as you get older. This cheapness puts a different perspective on your quality standards. And, every once in a while you come across a cheap gem. Found a M42 mount Vivitar 55mm f2.8 Macro that goes down to 1:1 for the high end of my $10~$20 personal limit. At the time didn't have a M42 body but finally found a Fujica ST605n for another $20 and the lens turned out to be a fine all around optic.

 

[chip j]

Great photographers of the past used old glass--who's designing lenses for great photographers now? In fact, where ARE all the Great photographers today?

 

[George Mann]

In fact, where ARE all the Great photographers today?

I am doing my best to live up to it!

 

[TheRook]

I find that older lenses are generally better suited for manual focusing than modern lenses that are designed for auto-focus. Lens sharpness means little if you are frequently struggling with focusing precision.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Great photographers of the past used old glass--who's designing lenses for great photographers now? In fact, where ARE all the Great photographers today?

right here dude!

 

[darkosaric]

"old glass 's flaws" are "character"
when i say "flaws" i might mean rendition of an image
which might be less clinical / pristine. its not so much better, but different

That is why I like Summar 5cm f2 over summicron.

 

[film_man]

I would be very interested to know if there are any situations whereby old lenses were actually better, in some ways, than new lenses of the same brand. For instance, with preset or stop down lenses, there was the luxury of more aperture blades (no need to have instant auto stop down), thus giving, perhaps, better bokeh.

But, in terms of actual resolution, contrast, or whatever: were any older ones actually better? I have a Pentax semi-auto 2/50 from the H1a days whose resolution is at least matched with the best of today. - David Lyga

Coating are better. Glass production is better. Even the blades example is not that valid. In the past they used more blades, now they use curved blades. So in most cases the answer is wrong. However, a lot of the improvements in today's lenses are to cater towards the high MP digital bodies which are far more demanding on lenses than film so you won't necessarily benefit greatly if you're shooting film.

 

[removed account4]

There are many who use flatbed scanners today and they may conclude that the lens is the limiting factor in achieving highest resolution when comparing it to their sensor camera. If they used a low quality film it is possible the detail may not have been captured on it. In this example,

film resolution, scanner resolution optics resolution &c
it seems after years of reading this "stuff" and how "important" they are
i have realized these things are just talking points ... and in the end it is the image that counts
not how many lines per micrometer a lens or film or scanner or sensor can resolve.
if someone is interested in "resolve" and looking at thread counts on linen or counting eye lashes on a baby
or pores on a portrait subject ... great! but to me, i couldn't care less about a 32x40" image of fairies dance on the head of a pin
i'd rather spend my time and efforts on less resolution / resolve making different types of images ..
so may people put all their energies into x lens or x brand of camera or gettng drum scans, sounds like a wild goose / silver bullet chase to me.

YMMV

 

[Nodda Duma]

Not to quarrel with you, Jason, but the OP asked

Naturally. My point is that I tend to evaluate the lenses on their own merits, understanding the technical limitations and a fair idea of the requirements in whatever era a lens was developed. At a more practical level, the "best" lens will be the one that most fully meets my own requirements. Your example illustrates that perfectly. In my case, a Nikon E-series 50 f/1.8 is a better lens than just about everything else out there because (a) low cost, (b) it fits my Nikon body, and (c) I'm shooting 50mm as I work on composition. A portrait or sports photographer would disagree. Conversely, I also love the Rapid Rectilinear on my plate camera and the qualities it adds to an image.

What is annoying is the opinion (not yours) expressed that older optics better meeting a photographer's individual requirements indicates that the industry's design capabilities have somehow regressed or lost knowledge. That's a frightfully ignorant viewpoint.

 

[Europan]

Simple question that raises complicated answering

Coating left aside, an old triplet in a good mount stands up to any modern triplet when both are stopped down. Modern lenses are often made from glasses the old didn’t have. They excel wide open.

Four elements, you can be better off with a symmetrical dialyte type lens at short conjugates. These designs are hardly used today. An Ernostar can bring nice pictures and a clean Tessar even nicer ones. Younger Tessar lenses with a modern coating beat the old, though. Four elements are popular with longer focal lengths.

Five elements, you enter a field of puzzling possibilites. I have noticed that a five-elements Kern Pizar delivers as sharp images as a six-elements Switar. The comparison is flawed though because the Pizar has double the focal length. That is on 16mm film. Around f/4 the Switar is better.

I have a symmetrical two halves Meyer Euryplan, 127 mm, not coated. Three elements are cemented together in each half. From it, with a Folmer Graflex 4" × 5" on Gigabitfilm 25 I got negatives that no modern lens could surpass.

The rest is chauvinism. Dave Shaffer tells why.

 

[David Lyga]

The outpouring of responses is far from what I expected! This topic raised some emotions. What I have learned from you is that what constitutes improvement is definitively more subjective than one would initially presume. A lens 'personality' manages even to inflict its status as a deciding factor in a qualitative assessment of the underpinning of the optic. It is true that, construction-wise, lenses were built better years ago. But, even with multi-coating, the answers to my question become necessarily multifaceted.

The emergence of digital factors do, indeed, impinge upon what actually constitutes even a 'resolution continuum' today! The question was not as simple as I had thought and was posted because I have 'old' lenses which perform spectacularly.

Your comments, again, prove the value of this forum and thank you for these, as well as any future comments you make. - David Lyga

 

[AgX]

The only thing one hardly can argue about is MTF. When I compare lenses of the FD-period to respective lenses from the EF-period I see better MTF's.
Something to bother about? Here the discussion might start...

 

[David Lyga]

I guess that Modulation Transfer Function is something that I am not sufficiently sophisticated with. But, of course that is a valid assessment, as lab tests are the ultimate determinant with regard to lab-measured resolution. But, again, 'personality' does come into play within the realm of 'absolute best' criteria. - David Lyga

 

[Ian Grant]

What is annoying is the opinion (not yours) expressed that older optics better meeting a photographer's individual requirements indicates that the industry's design capabilities have somehow regressed or lost knowledge. That's a frightfully ignorant viewpoint.

There's another side to that comment because there may not actually be modern lenses available to fit one's chosen camera(s). I have no doubts that the best modern lenses are better than the best lenses available in say the 1970s particularly normal - wider angle zooms.

So in my case using screw mount and K (manual focus) mount Pentax cameras there isn't. Yes there were some recent Zeiss prime lenses sold at very high premium prices but really to expensive for older cameras.

One of the goals of the industry in recent years has been to produce lower cost zooms for Digital cameras, some like the Canon EF-S 18-55mm zoom are excellent lenses in terms of image quality but frustratingly slow f3.5 -f5.6 and build quality is not high, mine lasted a few days longer than the 1 year warranty. A down side is I couldn't use it on my Canon EOS film body which I bought new for £10 ($14)

To many we are Luddites because we still use film often preferring manual focus cameras, the bottom line is the quality of the final images. while this post is in the 35mm forum I'd just comment that I've been using MF & LF lenses made over a period of just over 60 years, you can't tell that from the prints in my exhibition sets, They lenses include a 1940 Dagor, 1953/4 CZJ T Tessar, Schneider Angulon and Super Angulons (coated but not MC) 1960's to early 70's, MC Sironr, Symmars and Grandagon late 70's to mid 80's. and a very late post 2000 Xenar.

Of coarse differences will be far less noticeable as you increase format size and also it's how you use a lens to get the best from it. There were some very poor (in terms of performance) lenses for 35mm cameras particularly 3rd party wide angle lenses in the 60's and onwards and most modern zooms covering the same focal lengths have far less distortion and better sharpness, that's the area of greatest improvements.

Ian

 

[Jim Jones]

65 years ago I thought moving from a Mercury II up to a Leica iiif would immediately make me a wiser photographer. It didn't. Making the most of whatever equipment we have is more productive than relying on the latest and best equipment to compensate for our ignorance. Probably only a tiny fraction of photographers are seriously limited by their gear. Of course many new lenses are better in many ways than their ancestors, but are our photographs that much better? Isn't that the most important consideration?

 

[Pete Myers]

What is annoying is the opinion (not yours) expressed that older optics better meeting a photographer's individual requirements indicates that the industry's design capabilities have somehow regressed or lost knowledge. That's a frightfully ignorant viewpoint.

I would say what is more frightfully ignorant is characterizing any opinion other then your own as frightfully ignorant. Sorry, but you are coming across like the "thought police." Hopefully, that was not your intention.

Many of us that have been around a long time are finding tremendous arrogance from the photo manufacturers in simply not listening to their customers, and it is reflected in the design goals of their products. Tom Peters, in his 1982 book, "In Search of Excellence" outlined the need for companies to simply listen to their customers if they wanted to succeed. While a popular notion at the time, the idea of listening seems to have been eclipsed in the modern era. It only takes one look at the CIPA camera shipment data to show how the photo industry has tumbled to the ground, and likely the basics are simple; not listening to their customers.

David's original question for this post was quite valid in asking whether something had been lost in transition over time in lens design, and for some of us the answer is clearly yes---at least with some very specific examples. There are traditions in photography with lenses that have proven themselves as exemplary over many decades of use by hundreds of thousands of photographers. These lenses are of known design. It would be a reasonable expectation to see such designs perhaps tweaked with specialized glass or even perhaps an aspheric element, but to disregard their design completely and start anew would me to be the definition of "ignorant."

Pete

 

[ciniframe]

Well, for sure the 60mm f8 lens on a Holga 120 is a 'pro' optic.
It's used by a noted photographer, David Burnett, whose Holga photos have been.......
Published in a national weekly, Time magazine. (and other outlets)
Ergo, It is a great 'older' lens. At least in Burnett's hands.

As an aside, and I've mentioned this before, a 2002 article by Mike Johnston "The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt" is a good read on the subject of lenses, funny and too true. It's on the web at Steve's Digicams.

 

[Dali]

65 years ago I thought moving from a Mercury II up to a Leica iiif would immediately make me a wiser photographer. It didn't. Making the most of whatever equipment we have is more productive than relying on the latest and best equipment to compensate for our ignorance. Probably only a tiny fraction of photographers are seriously limited by their gear. Of course many new lenses are better in many ways than their ancestors, but are our photographs that much better? Isn't that the most important consideration?

I agree with you but this is not the OP's question.

 

[hdeyong]

Lenses, especially old lenses, have a character all their own. The newer ones are much more uniform, in that there is less variation from one to the next. I recently bought an Olympus OM 1 body and got a Vivitar 28mm f2.5 with it, basically for free. It has turned out to be one of my favourite lenses, not because it's super sharp, but because it has a really nice rendering. There is no way to explain this, any more than I can explain why I like one bit of art more than another, it's just a nice "look". For that reason, I like older lenses.

 

[cliveh]

In fact, where ARE all the Great photographers today?

They are too busy selecting which shot out of one in a 1000 they should edit in Photoshop and if the histogram is correct.

 

[removed account4]

actually, the "great photographers" are all around us, we are just to blind to see their work

 

[chip j]

The only thing one hardly can argue about is MTF. When I compare lenses of the FD-period to respective lenses from the EF-period I see better MTF's.
Something to bother about? Here the discussion might start...

YES, I've always wanted to make a great print of an MTF.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I would say that the only exception would be that new zoom lenses are better than the older ones. But I think primes are ever bit as good as new glass. Take a look at this video. I find my old Canon FD glass is sharp enough for me.

 

[AgX]

YES, I've always wanted to make a great print of an MTF.

But of course of one of a Leitz lens.