Zoom...today vs yesterday

[AgX]

The manufacturer [of Zoomar lenses] was Kilfitt Optical Works, but Zoomar was not only a tradename for their zoom-lenses but also used in the name of a trading company, likely linked to the Kilfitt Works.

Lens Designer Back designed and manufactured zoom lenses under the Zoomar brand and contracted the works of lens designer Kilfit to manufacture his still-photo Zoomar lens from 1958.
In 1968 Back bought the Kilfitt works.

 

[benveniste]

Are Zooms of today "better" made than a zoom made circa 1975.?

In my opinion, the biggest jump in Zoom quality occurred once it became economically feasible to apply multicoating to all of the lens elements. This not only increased transmission significantly, but gave lens designers the freedom to use additional elements where needed. Zoom quality continued to improve as ED glass and aspheric elements became more affordable as well. By 1975, there were a few quality zooms such as the Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5 and the previously mentioned Vivitar/Kiron 70-210mm f/3.5, but it really took another five years or so before they were generally accepted for professional use.

Nikon's 43-86mm lenses are an example of this. The original version used 9 elements in 7 groups, but in 1975 Nikon redesigned it to use 11 elements in 8 groups. I own one of the latter lenses for which I paid $22 -- it's reasonably sharp at f/5.6, but it still suffers from excess distortion.

Do you guys use a Zoom very often with your Film SLR.? Thank You

I use quite a few zooms with my film SLR's. In the last year, I've used.
Pentax 110 -- 20-40mm f/2.8 (But just once).
Nikon Pronea S -- 30-60mm f/3.5~5.6, 60-180mm f/4.5~5.6
Nikon FA -- 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5, 80-200mm f/4
Nikon F100 -- 17-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.6~2.8, 75-150mm f/3.5, 70-200mm f/2.8
Pentax 645n -- 45-85mm f/4.5, 80-160mm f/4.5

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

There is something you should know. The first generation EOS 1 was not up to the task of fast sports photography. That camera caused a backlash at Canon at a time when Nikon was making inroads into drive and AF speeds. Anecdotal feedback to Canon is what brought about ramped up research and design of the EOS 1N, with the higher frame rate and particularly the increased number of focusing points linked to a faster drive performance. It made a big difference, and from 1995 the 1N became the flagship, saturating the ranges of general media but especially sports photographers. The '1' is a quaint relict worthy of a touch and feel, but not really suited to high speed work. Improved zoom lenses (the L-series, designed around the performance of the EOS 1N and later EOS 1V) that progressively came out made the system very hard to beat. But today's digital toys can certainly outgun the best of the "old guard" analogue cameras, but it still and always will require that the photographer has the skill to be up to the task, rather than blithely putting faith in the camera to do everything for him -- irrespective of the camera being analogue or digital.

I had a -1N and a -3. Also some USM lenses and that made a difference.
But, you still needed to know when to press the shutter.
Lots of FPM means nothing if you end up with hundreds, if not thousands of pictures badly composed and shot at the wrong moment simply because you left it to your stupid DSLR to do the things for you.
I bet that even today's Formula 1 Digitographers rather use pre-focus and anticipate the moment they're going to press the button to start AF and to take a picture.

 

[Arklatexian]

Computers are used in lens design since the mid-50s.
In the meantime not only computer aided manufacture but new lens materials emerged.

If what I have read is correct, Leitz/Leica was responsible for building the first computer of probably any camera lens manufacturer and it was used mostly to help design new lenses for their cameras and, I'll bet, for their microscopes as well. And this was begun just before WW2 which began in September 1939......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

I know what you are saying but for me it wouldn't have made a difference. I was the assistant manager and unofficial team photographer. I shot a lot of pictures of the team for the girls and their parents. By shooting digital it didn't cost me anything. I couldn't have afforded all that 35mm film. I guess you could say that I could have taken the money that I paid for the digital camera and paid for the film. I was involved in eBay sales of film cameras, lenses and other equipment. That digital camera enabled me to post my images to Ebay and sell a lot of equipment over the years. The profit I made funded most of my film camera gear and also all the film I shot.

Without shooting digital I could never have afforded medium and large format film cameras. I also couldn't have afforded all the film I have shot.

If I were you, I would never apologize for what I used, might use or will use to get a job done. It is no one's business but mine what I use to do what I need to do in photography. In my lifetime, so far, I have spent entirely too much on film photography/darkroom, etc. but I did that because I wanted to and for no other reason much less to satisfy some imagined debt that I owe the hobby. And it is my hobby, nothing more.......Regards!

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

About zooms.
Modern zooms are optically better, but I doubt they are made to last like zooms from 30 years ago.
Notwithstanding that, they are the result of many years of progress in the field of optics.
But, recently optical designers become lazy: they are using editing software to correct distortions and aberrations in a picture rather than trying to correct it in the lens in the first place. That and the fact the newer zooms are electronically controlled doesn't bode well for durability.
Some earlier zoom lenses are still excellent. Case of the Nikon Series E 75-150mm /3.5. Small, light and very good optically.
Others aren't so good. It is the case of the first Zuiko zoom for the OM. The 70-150mm /3.5 has a touch more distortion that is clearly seen. The later 65-200mm /4 is a lot better.

 

[AgX]

If what I have read is correct, Leitz/Leica was responsible for building the first computer of probably any camera lens manufacturer and it was used mostly to help design new lenses for their cameras and, I'll bet, for their microscopes as well. And this was begun just before WW2 which began in September 1939......Regards!

In Germany there were only computer prototypes in that period. (3 samples until 1950, all from Zuse).
None went to Leitz.

But Leitz got the Zuse Z5 in 1950.

The west-german competitors Zeiss and Schneider got later the next model Z22.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I know what you are saying but for me it wouldn't have made a difference. I was the assistant manager and unofficial team photographer. I shot a lot of pictures of the team for the girls and their parents. By shooting digital it didn't cost me anything. I couldn't have afforded all that 35mm film. I guess you could say that I could have taken the money that I paid for the digital camera and paid for the film. I was involved in eBay sales of film cameras, lenses and other equipment. That digital camera enabled me to post my images to Ebay and sell a lot of equipment over the years. The profit I made funded most of my film camera gear and also all the film I shot.

Without shooting digital I could never have afforded medium and large format film cameras. I also couldn't have afforded all the film I have shot.

I didn't see this post earlier, sorry. Thanks for the post Alan.

 

[Tony-S]

The second version of the Series 1 70 - 210 f3.5 lens that was manufactured by Tokina is the best one.

Well, I've never owed any version of this lens, but my understanding from the tubes is that the Komine (version 3) was considered the best, with the Tokina second. Here's one Dead Link Removed that summarizes the author's views.

 

[benjiboy]

Well, I've never owed any version of this lens, but my understanding from the tubes is that the Komine (version 3) was considered the best, with the Tokina second. Here's one Dead Link Removed that summarizes the author's views.

Don't believe everything you read on test reports, that's one person's very unscientific view lppm ( line pairs per millimetre) is a very old fashioned way of evaluating lens performance these days they use M.T.F. ( modulatory transfer function ) that plots definition over contrast.
Version 3 isn't a constant aperture lens where the first two versions are, it's f2.8 - f4 consequently to be avoided because to use them with a hand held ambient or flash separate light meter is a nightmare because the exposure changes along the length of the barrel as you change the magnification of the zoom, like yourself I doubt if the author has actually used these lenses much for practical photography. I have owned and used the version 2 Tokina one for more than 25 years .

 

[Alan Gales]

If I were you, I would never apologize for what I used, might use or will use to get a job done. It is no one's business but mine what I use to do what I need to do in photography. In my lifetime, so far, I have spent entirely too much on film photography/darkroom, etc. but I did that because I wanted to and for no other reason much less to satisfy some imagined debt that I owe the hobby. And it is my hobby, nothing more.......Regards!

Thanks for your support, oldtimermetoo.

 

[Alan Gales]

I didn't see this post earlier, sorry. Thanks for the post Alan.

No worries, Ricardo. We are good!

 

[cliveh]

If you want to control perspective, a zoom lens is a hindrance not a help.

 

[Ap507b]

Echo the comments on the 1st version of the Nikkor 43-86. Got one recently to see if it is as bad as said & it lived up to the hype. Noticeable barrel distortion no matter what focal length. Great way to make a lamp post bend like a banana.

Zooms that I have that I find good are a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5. Think it's the second edition. Nikkor 80-200 F4.5 AI & Nikkor 28-105 AFD. Have also been surprised how good the images I have got for a Zuiko 70-150 that cost me £6 from ebay.

 

[Pioneer]

New zooms are good, old ones are good. I use the daylights out of two or three Vivitar Series One Zoom I own (70-210; 90-180 and 24-48.) I also love my Pentax 645 zooms and have worked with some great, recent Canon L zooms.

But, in most cases, I find a good prime to be the best choice for me. I find that I can shoot just about anything with the right selection of lenses. I rarely carry more than one extra and almost never find myself undergunned. But it is a mindset. I know people (my brother) who wouldn't dream of leaving the house without their zoom(s). And they find it important to have full coverage all the way from 18mm out to 300mm.

More power to those who do this. I limit myself, not because I am a better photographer than they are, but because having all those options would just confuse me.

 

[AgX]

If you want to control perspective, a zoom lens is a hindrance not a help.

Why?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you want to control perspective, a zoom lens is a hindrance not a help.

Why?

I too am unable to fathom the illogic of the first post. Zooming allows the photographer to see the perspective change with an SLR when move the shooting location to keep the image size the same. Now if one were to use a zoom lens on a RF camera [why???] then that statement would make sense.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=HCB+boy+and+cart&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB558GB558&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=899&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXs-S3l6HOAhWkBcAKHQ3lAgYQ_AUICCgB#tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CVM4HGdAaIJ1IjjjMgSijR6j3DVbFD52P8EvTWZes3zjrr0ML4w0u4JVHfc2143fTj8eioGiqkaefrZhkbXMz1kR3yoSCeMyBKKNHqPcEaZf9qw3lFHoKhIJNVsUPnY_1wS8RA9-r7He641AqEglNZl6zfOOuvRFnIJ1IYGovMyoSCQwvjDS7glUdEagYR7v6smKjKhIJ9zbXjd9OPx4RaE_1u2IPvhWcqEgmKgaKqRp5-thHBCuGHpFPv0yoSCWGRtczPWRHfEWB-ORYIzBuW&q=Henri Cartier-bresson cart and boy&imgrc=2gYIcEcHZsbytM:

Here is a prime example, look at the way the position of the camera allows the angle of the cart to match the angle of the line on the wall. Try and do this with a zoom lens and you will lose the plot.

No. What you need to do is get over this HCB thing and show what you mean with your own work, a direct example illustrating specifically what it is that does not agree with you. There can be hundreds of visual interpretations of any one image that HCB produced, and this holds true for any other photographer, dead or alive. And for a great many of HCB's images, composition was not necessarily his strong point! So where is your point of difference about zooms that is convincing, rather than just say that zooms 'does this but not that'? They can change the perspective in the same way as you do when you change a lens, and that's deliberate as part of their design. What else are you getting antsy about?? Please explain.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Why?

As far as I remember from what I read many years ago, perspective is controlled by distance to object, not the focal length.
But, I might be wrong.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It seems I'm correct:

Well first of all lets get one of the myths of perspective out of the way, perspective does not change when you change your lens.

It is often said that a telephoto lens compresses perspective but actually the perspective remains the same. If you were to take the same image, one with a wide angle lens and one with a telephoto lens, then you were to crop the wide angle image to the same framing as the telephoto, the image would look identical.

Perspective, in fact can only be changed by changing position, for example, if you were to use the wide angle lens and physically move closer to your subject to get the same framing as the telephoto lens, then, you will have changed the perspective. What actually happens when you change lens is that your angle of view changes.

From: http://www.lightstalking.com/using-perspective-in-photography/

 

[AgX]

Exactly and thus I do not see any shortcomings of zoom lenses on the matter of perspective.
To the contrary, as I can chose between focal lenghts I get benefits, as DOF.

 

[Alan Gales]

As far as I remember from what I read many years ago, perspective is controlled by distance to object, not the focal length.
But, I might be wrong.

You are correct, Ricardo.

I see a zoom lens as giving you more choices about perspective. If I'm using my 50mm at 6ft away from a portrait subject I'm fine but if I want a close up I have to move up closer which will change the perspective and give me undesired results. With a zoom I can zoom in from 50mm to 100mm at 6ft and get a nice look without distorting the face.

 

[Helinophoto]

Primes of the past or current?

Current (consumer) primes.

In Canon, afaik it's only the 85 f1.8 that can compete really.
- not many of the consumer grade primes are very new in design either. (90's)

Not only computers are used in modern L-zooms, but also exotic glass and coating.
L-lenses rarely have a definite sweet-spot, they get sharper as you stop down, naturally, but it's hard to tell by eye, since they are often very very sharp from the get go.

The newest canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is simply a monster regarding sharpness and detail.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Exactly and thus I do not see any shortcomings of zoom lenses on the matter of perspective.
To the contrary, as I can chose between focal lenghts I get benefits, as DOF.

To a point. If one move the shooting position so that the subject is the same size for each photograph the depth of field for a specific f/stop will be the same for every focal length. I discovered that when I first bought several lenses for the first time. I went to photograph a fountain framing to fill the frame. For a specific f/stop the depth of field was the same! Many years later at Kodak, I asked my boss why. He got out Modern Optical Engineering by Smith, wrote down the equations for depth of field vis-a-vis distance and focal length. He then did some term substitutions and the focal length dropped out of the equations!

 

[cliveh]

They can change the perspective in the same way as you do when you change a lens, and that's deliberate as part of their design.

But as already stated the focal length of the lens does not change perspective. The camera position controls perspective.