"There's a lot to be said about not having everything perfect all the time." ..... What every photographer needs to hear. Thanks Ted, love what your doing.
I'm a senior lens design engineer in one of the big companies, which also makes a lot of industrial metrology. So the title of this video caught my eye for sure 😀. I liked what you said and I confirm, it's very true 👍. A huge portion of my time is balancing the requirements and specs to achieve the relevant points with common sense. If it was just about making it as perfect as possible, it was way easier. We have to make a product, optimal for its job, including all aspects like cost, weight and much more. That's the reason, why there are so many different lenses out there. We have in fact excellent design software nowadays, this help enormously in the process of optimizing the lens design. In the 80es, lens designer were mathematicians and physicists, today we are rather hands-on engineers with good math and physics background. The critical thing which needs a lot of experience is telling the software, in which direction it has to optimize...
Hi Ted, nice work, I enjoyed that. I think one of the biggest things I've learned having tested camera lenses for over 25 years now is not to assume one is going to deliver better results simply because it has a larger aperture or higher price tag. I've seen f1.8 models regularly out-perform f1.4 models in terms of corner to corner sharpness, even when the latter are stopped down, although to be fair this applies more to lenses from a few years ago. Plus if you're into bokeh blobs, the moment you begin to stop down, the shape is of course influenced by the aperture blade shape, so a 50mm f1.8 at f1.8 might look nicer than a 50mm f1.4 at f1.8 - it'll almost certainly be more rounded anyway. Secondly, optical design and materials science is constantly improving, and a lens which was considered amazing even just a few years ago may be comfortably beaten by a newer design. I'm amazed at how almost every new lens released now aces all the benchmarks and performs at levels we could only dream of a few short years ago. Another major thing I've learned is that striving for the highest optical quality can end up giving you a result that's overly clinical and lacking character. I know some of my favourite lenses are not my sharpest ones, but instead the ones which deliver the most attractive rendering for me personally. And that's what I love about them, that they give a character that appeals on a subjective level rather than ticking all the test boxes. I can tell you which lenses are the sharpest, but you might not get on with them personally! Looking forward to the rest of this series...
I'm about to say the same thing, but you have beaten me to it. I own both versions for Nikon's F mount 85mm and 50mm. In both cases the f1.8 out perform both in sharpness, CA and often have faster AF as well. However, I still take my f1.4 lenses. They fit my artistic vision better. I mostly do children and pet photography and sharpness isn't really a concern and I do prefer the look those f1.4 lenses produce. Again, this is something personal.
one thing i missed in the video and in this comment (i'm a fan of you two) is that exclusivity in photography is also a thing. leica and zeiss, for instance, are also about exclusivity. you are buying status. it doesn't matter how much one says a particular lens from those two brands doesn't beat a less expensive one, having a lens from either of them is a statement of financial power, of a priviledged group, that you are part of a group of people very few can be part of. i mean, a person can live very modestly in all aspects just so they can afford expensive photo gear, but until people find out about this, you are making a statement you simply cannot make with other brands. for instance, i think that nikon noct is a work-of-art, but if leica or zeiss does the same, even if it has a less high performance, but costs twice as much, it will be worth more. the brand name and what it represents plays a big role there. a brand that knows how to play with people's emotion and make them see it as more valuable without really being as valuable or not that much more valuable is something to admire and be recognize. by the way, some improvements in lens design first appear in expensive lenses, so it's the people who can buy exclusivity that are opening the doors to new technologies.
I've been really loving older lenses lately. We just got a 6 lens cine-modded kit of Super Takumars and they've been amazing. The flares are incredible. Paired with the BMPCC 6k theyre sharp and hold detail well but don't have a ton of micro contrast which has been really nice for skin renditions.
Many people dont even know there are differences with the same lens,as in if you bought 2 of the same 105mm,they both can be different.That's why I learned to use ONE lens until you learn everything it can do.Learn to move,walk,raise the camera,lower it,and do whatever you need to get your shots framed .I use new glass and old,and I do not 'switch'.I use what i have,no matter if i have something new or not.
If one is a prime shooter - like me - don’t waist your money on a very expensive perfectly corrected lens with 15 elements. You’ve just eliminated the reason why you are a prime shooter because you’ve just lost the micro-contrast and depth you can capture with a 5-7 element lens. This is why some older lenses are still the best. If the lens is not perfect in the corners...SO WHAT. By the 15th element those poor little photons that make it through the gauntlet are exhausted. People do not take a magnifying glass and inspect the extreme corners of your photo. In fact vignetting often improves a photo. Why would anyone spend twice as much, loose depth, contrast and that 3-D feel so the fly buzzing through the corner is perfectly rendered? The obsession with how the extreme corners come out is a lens manufacturer’s selling point for those who are obsessed with such things and have money to burn and a chiropractor to adjust their neck. Today’s lenses are designed using computers and lazars and even the less expensive ones are perhaps better performers than the world class ones of 20-30 years ago. Improve your photos by improving your eye for composition and knowing the equipment you’re using as well as how to spell you name. A $2000 lens will not do that.
I buy L series glass for my canon cameras, and I don’t think about lens performance because after using my 24-70mm f2.8L mk ii for a year now, I am satisfied that I don’t want to know anything in particular about it’s optical characteristics. It’s 🔥, and that’s all I need to know.
IMO most lenses can deliver great results when you work within their limitations. Some of my favourite lenses are most definitely not the most expensive! An example is the $120 Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 (nikon mount). All the pro reviews indicate it is not worth having, but I love it! I have obtained some really nice portraits from it at ~120mm, and with a bit of care you can easily get good background separation. It's great for general sports action in good light too. I've used it with film too. I note that it typically gets 4.5 to 5 stars in real world user reviews too.. it does a fantastic job on a budget.
Yes! Let's get nerdy on lens design and the corresponding measurements. I've been hoping for more photography/technical oriented videos rather than the 'look at the latest toys' type gear review.
great series TED! I enjoy using unique vintage wide aperture glass as well as new glass that are very well made, manual focus all the way for me, NO AF, I love the feel that you work to get to your images.
Ted, this should be an intresting series. I have a loxia 35mm and a 50mm. I really like the loxia 21mm for doing buildings in the city. These are great lenses and I do not use them enough. On the Canon 85mm, you get a different result on full frame and cropped frame.
I love how much you talk about Theory. As for knowing lens design "flaws", I typically do as much research as humanly possible before I buy something. Then I test it really quick to make sure it's not a bad copy (got one once that I quickly returned), then I stop worrying about the flaws whenever I shoot. They become part of my image and I'm totally ok with it. Side note. I have a Canon 85 1.8 and I absolutely LOVE it. It's been basically the only lens I used on my a7iii until I started testing a 28mm f/2 to compare against the new Tamron 24mm f/2.8
Nice to see a generalised approach to the subject of the tools we use, rather just reviewing/flogging new products. After all, the show is called The Art of Photography and not the commerce of cameras.
Liked the description of the Zeiss/Biogon designed lens. Would be nice if you could look at some of the features of other classic lens designs, e.g. Tessar, Planar, Sonnar etc I’d like to understand the characteristic of these lenses as many of the famous photographers that used them in the past produced different ‘looks’.
That Loxia F2/35mm is a gem (note my use of a technical term here 😱😀😀). I use it for Street and Urban/Non - Urban Landscape. Early next year its one of two lenses off to Antarctica. Quality lens without bulking your camera body. Agree with your comments re f stop and image characteristics. And in these times it's great to have a depth of field scale on a lens body, as you mention so handy for zone focusing Street, but even in setting up Landscape.
Older photographer here with a message to new photographers. Watch this video multiple times. There is a tremendous amount of information presented in a short video. One of the most important things advised, learn the focal length characteristics of each of your lenses. EG, One of my favorite lenses is tack sharp only between f4 and f8. The only thing of value that I can add to this video: very fast glass ( f1.2, f1.4) rarely has value for the majority of photographers. It’s value is however, in dim light where getting a sharp image is of little value. Examples, nightclub scenes, night street scenes, you intend to add grain to dark imagery and moody imagery. These are examples where having a tack sharp mage may work against your intent. Hope you find this interesting. Again, watch this video many times. He is giving a lot. Best to all, D
Though I like the vast majority of the content on this channel, I think it's videos like this that make this channel really shine and stand out from the rest. Looking forward to see more videos in this series. Keep up the great work Ted!
I completely agree with your take on pancake lenses! For me it's just too limited in what it does for me. I'll take my 18 to 55mm kit lens any day. It's also makes a better macro lens and it's a lot easier on my 70 year old legs.
The popular Helios is also a biogon design. It has really strange bokeh. However, many folks really love the circular bokeh of that lens and incorporate that into their photos. When used on purpose they can really take artistic advantage of the lens peculiarities. Great video.
It's crazy looking at Zeiss and knowing they also designed and manufactured the optics of every WW2 German tank. I guess they were pretty sharp and had little distortion back then too, if you can use them to aim a tank down 1000 metres
Very good as always with your presentation. I am an amateur astronomer also, and study optics etc. One concept I have never heard photographers speak about is the ABBE number. This gets complicated and I suspect you are going to have to research this, because I cannot present a lot of technical data. ABBE refers to the quality of the glass. The range is from 20 to 90 on the X axis. This is broken down into two major categories. 1. Flint glass (cheap) and Crown glass, which is higher quality. The CROWN numbers begin at 55 and goes to 90. The higher the quality of glass material adds to the cost. I suspect that the Nikon NOCT, 58mm is probably of the highest quality glass. If so, that would put it in a category of a professional grade telescope used for research at a university. This is conjecture on my part, but I suspect that the T-Stops are probably related to the ABBE numbers also. An excellent T-stop would be at or about the same number as the F/stop. The cheaper the lens the further the T-stop number is from the F/stop number. I have never seen any research on this concept in the world of photography. Maybe you could research this and present a video? Please let me know if you do. Mike Malloy, Corpus Christi, Tx
Stanley Kubrick used old lenses to create different atmospheres on film. He was a still photographer in the first place. People should try a 5x4 camera with shift tilt and swing movements. Great effects with almost any lens or even with a pinhole
Geek note: f/1.2 can either be a half stop or a third stop faster than f/1.4 depending on which scale you're using. In my experience with old manual focus Nikon glass at least, I've found that it's typically the latter, even though it's priced more like it's the former. One more reason to test before you buy.
Love the new series, but I was wondering why you hardly ever do anything about Leica lenses and the whole Leica M system. I've recently upgraded my Sony A6000 to a Leica M10 as I was getting more serious about street photography and it completely changed my way of shooting. In addition to this, the whole Leica M lens system is completely different than that of any other manufacturer - basically all the lenses have character like the Zeiss lens you showed in this video. I love your channel and your thoughts, so I would love to hear your thoughts about the Leica M system! :)
Well said. I personally love old vintage lenses with all their quirks and imperfection. In the age of perfection in photography, some oddities in the photo are welcomed :) That being said, I do use the best lens that I can afford for paid gigs. For personal projects, any lens will do :D
This was one of the most informative videos on lenses I have seen. What really hit "home" so to speak is the idea of learning your lens "sweet spots". I have heard that before but you really hit it on the head. Thanks for the informative video.
Back in the day when I started out I bought a cheap APS-C super Zoom (tamron something?) and brought on travel. It looked like crap for most shots and needed lots of post processing, barely usable - except for tele. It actually took great photos for the price when shooting an outdoor concert in Germany. For that time, the tele shots was some of my best shots.
When I first started in photography I knew less than zero about lenses. After having an experience where I stopped a lens down to f22 (because I had read the higher the f number, the sharper the image) and the images all turned out horrible, I decided to learn more about lenses. Now I know the characteristics of my individual lenses as far as sharpness, corner to corner sharpness, what the lens will do at each aperture step, focal distance etc and more importantly, why they are performing the way they do. I look forward to this series.
The Lensdays idea is really great. I think with so many camera bodies being in such a state of flux and there being such a proliferation of peripherals and other gadgets, lenses have been neglected on photography TH-cam lately. And something that wasn't just reviews of the latest release, but with your focus on craft, fundamentals and a longer view of the subject will be really great. It will definitely keep me refreshing your page for more.
This is interesting. For more than 30 years I worked as a photojournalist, and over the years I owned many different lenses, for many years carrying as many as 12 with me everywhere, every day. My back will never be right again, but I had to be ready for anything under any condition, and I usually had to work fast. As you said, different lenses can be right for certain situations. But the most important consideration was to get the image of the moment, even if it wasn't technically perfect. In later years, I got into art photography, mostly landscapes and wildlife. Fortunately my lineup of Canon L lenses, which I had needed for sports, were also wonderful for the new work. Not long after digital image capturing essentially replaced film as the recording medium, I moved on to other endeavors. I have had two digital fixed lens cameras, but I am now coming back to photography and catching up on all the technical advancements of the last 15 years or so. One thing that hasn't changed, is that the most important physical tool in the lens.
Hi Ted, in this new series, could you make one video, in which you explain what you do with a new lens? How do you test it? How do you determine all these things you listed in your video that the user should know about a lens' behavior?
Now this topic speaks to my soul! I love lenses of all types and formats. Lenses, they are the eyes of photography and without eyes, there's no vision.
I remember when Sony came out with their full frame A7 for a while afterwards many people was saying "where is all the good lens" all they had was the kit lens and the 70-200 F4 which I still have.
Regarding your question around 9:10: Absolutely YES! I like to test every lens I try to get a feel for it. My response to your Zeiss Loxia is my old pre-Ai Nikkor 55mm f/1.2. Wide open it gets less contrasty and a bit hazy (it's still sharp under the haze though) and renders huge, oval bokeh. Stopped down to f/2 the haze goes away and the contrast improves, but its seven straight aperture blades kinda murder bokeh on point sources, but less specular bokeh is nice. Corner performance is a bit lacking until f/4 or so, but my corners are rarely in focus anyways. At f/11 it renders amazing sunstars, and since it's the old pre-AI body the focus throw is massive so fine tuning focus or setting up for zone focus or hyperfocal shooting is a snap. It's really like three or four lenses in one! Only cost me $125 last year, and it's been one of my most commonly used lenses since then.
Yes, Ted returning to form. Don't het me wrong, I'm fine with the gear reviews. But to me the true strength of your channel was always this. Talking about the art and/or the technical side of achieving results with whatever in stead of the latest and greatest.
I used a pancake 40mm lens on a Canon 6dMk2 for one of the days of the NYC street photography workshop last April. The profile of this lens on the street outweighed the image compromises I knew would occur. Good discussion - almost as geeky as Tony N.
YES my Loxia 35mm f2 does NOT have that imperfection in the Bokeh that yours has. I also own the new 35mm 1.8 FE that you named the "Lens of the year" and I like the images from the Loxia WAY more. Thanks for the years of great work Ted.
I had been looking for a 85mm f/1.4 for a couple of years and hadn't quite found one which I thought was optically right. I popped into my local camera store, the day the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Milvus came in (by accident), tried it and fell in love. A month later, I bought the lens. Unfortunately, whilst I love the lens, it just turned out to be a bit of a pain to use on my D800. Having to manual focus, just gots in the way of me shooting portraits, as I like to talk to the client, then quickly pop the camera up, focus and take the shot. Unfortunately, the Milvus just slowed me down too much and in the end I bought the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4e which whilst not as optically good, ends up being used the vast majority of the time, whilst my Milvus sits in the bag. Finding the right lens, isn't just about optics, there are a whole range of things, which are important and the worst lens, is one you never end up using. Fingers crossed, when I eventually buy a Nikon full frame, the Milvus will come out to play again much more.
I HIGHLY recommend looking into the process of optical contacting. It might not be explicitly photography based but its definitely a source of great intrigue to be had.
To your question: When I first got into mirrorless I used a lot (like A LOT) of analog era lenses. And I would always just check them out fully for the purpose I needed them. Since I used the lenses for portraiture, I always checked my lenses for middle sharpness, corner sharpness and the bokeh. An example which comes to mind was the Jupiter-9 85mm f2, lovely lens, just not sharp at f2, stopped down it performs well, but the center sharpness really was just center sharpness. Any subject I shot with the lens had to be in the middle of the image, anything other than center would just fall into unsharp territory. Nowadays I seem to be gearing up towards a full AF lens lineup with a 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 which are both so sharp wide open I tend not to worry, though I do still look for it. But there are so many lenses which have their own taste, especially with older glass. Nowadays it seems like the character of those lenses are considered flaws and the manufacturers do their best to rid lenses of those.
Yes! You took the words right out of my mouth. Ted - I miss the artist series videos, and your history of photography type videos where you talk about and introduce us to different influential photographers. Everyone is talking about gear. Your old style videos set you apart from the pack. I miss the old Ted Forbes videos!
Yes, some episodes of the Artist series are one of the few things on TH-cam I go back to and replay...... and replay! I learnt so much from these. They led me to Sally Mann, Saul Leiter, Keith Carter, Graciela Iturbide, and the list goes on. The only downside were the £££s I spent on chasing books of these photographers’ works. I know the Artist series is very demanding of your time, Ted, but it really sets you apart.
Thank you for doing a video like this, coupling gear to results and showing what you mean. I will always be a gear head. I'm a sound technician by profession, and a photographer by passion. And I have a thing for old gear, because I sometime want a certain color in my sound, or a certain texture in my photos. I use the unsharpness to tell me where to look, or how to let my eyes read the picture. Just like I use old microphones to put instruments in the back or the front of a sound mix. It's about perspective, to me. I got what you are saying about having two lenses of similar focal lengths. I have two 80mm for my Mamiya m645. I like the 1.9 for portraits and close focussed pictures. The background not only gets out of focus, but also less contrasty, and this I really like. But for forest pictures that I want to be crisp, this lens really does not work. The 80mm f2.8, being a straight planar design really does do a good job at infinity focus. I experimented with lenses on my digital camera a lot. I have a cheap RJ Focal Reducer on it, in FD mount. The upshot of FD is that you can convert it to Nikon AI and M42 easily with a cheap ring. So I tried lot's of 50mm lenses this way. I found a Mamiya 55mm f1.4. Loved it, loved the colors. It's somehow more saturated than other lenses. And the reds are detaild, while they fill up to solids on other lenses I tried. I hardly ever tool it of my camera. Then I dropped it, and the aperture dial broke internally. I got myself another Mamiya 55mm f1.4, this time a slightly more modern copy. It is as good. It is sharp and the bokeh is smooth and out of the way. Backgrounds do go to the background. It is sharper than the old one. Lens test will say it is "better". This has been my default lens for a few years. But one day I decided to open up the old copy. I fixed the aperture dial, put it on my camera and found my old voice again.
When you suspected we would be glazing over, you were finally touching on what I expected to hear. If you don't cover the depths, I'm not sure who will.... Thanks!
This video deserves a million likes, everything was put on well and what many you tubers fail to say, but he is not a you tuber, this gentleman is a photographer, thank you for speaking the truth!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
As I am on a tight budget, and a hobby photographer, I recently acquired an a7r2 and some Takumars and Ai Nikon series E lenses. Tremendous fun! With a Canon Pro100 printer, I'm in pig heaven! Tip: Takumar 50mm f4 macro is truly awesome!
Really nice video. It would be interesting to see a breakdown video of maybe vintage vs modern lenses, how did the internals change during years, how lenses physically work etc :)
If you are going to discuss lens design and character, i think the two things that are absolutely essential but overlooked: Lens temperture (i.e. coolness/warmness), and Color Rendering* (Smoothness + contrast + palette, of tones, etc)
I adore my Loxia 35/f2, but I also have a Samyang 35/f2.8 and a 24-70/f2.8. Different tools for different jobs. The Loxia won't always get the technically best photographs or the most usable photographs, but of those lenses, it is the most fun because it has the most engaging shooting experience.
Yep! Sony FE 70-200mm, sharpest at 135mm and wide open! The trio of Sigma 1.4 primes get pretty sharp at 2.8, sharpest at 8, and diffraction sets in soon after. The 30mm's CA is pretty bad until f/4. I really enjoy how you're highlighting that different lenses have different trade-offs. That's a very uncommon thing in our technological wank era. Another example with the 85mm is the focus speed. The larger the aperture, the larger the elements get, and the more mass that the motors need to push around.
Very interesting topic!! I think there are different types of lens buyers. You are absolutely right on how lenses are tools as much as cameras, something that's easy to forget when you have so many options and price tags. I for example use a lot an old soviet Industar 50-2 originally designed for rangefinder cameras but easily adapted to an SLR. It's really small and makes a great pair for an SLR like a pentax K100 to carry on everywhere. As you mention, it comes with a loss on sharpness and other aspects, but that's not the main reason why I carry the lens. I think a good subject to touch on (and also interesting) is how lens design varies in between camera formats like 6x6 or 4x5 or even further 8x10. Very excited for these new series!
You hv a excellent n crisp voice pronouncing every word n can be easily catch n understood instantly Tks for the great advice Really luv your channel🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
As a retiree on a penny-pincher's pecuniary pension a used A7RII with Super-Taks, Zeiss Jena, and Meyer-Optik lenses intrigue me more than superior performance lenses (90mm macro and 55mm Ziess) What looms potential in the future might be ultra thin lenses designed at MIT and curved sensors. Got pre-GAS. BTW I'm so glad that you're using Capture One and highlighting some of many tools it has.
Ted, a topic I think many of us collectors might enjoy would be an explanation of the so-called "Sonnar signature" and some examples of the effect in various manufacturer's lenses. The design is widely available across brands, giving most of us easy opportunity to use it's effects more intentionally. I know I love my Canon 50mm f/1/5 screw mount, petite and chunky compared to the standard f/1.8 complement.
Yes Ted i understand how my lens perform 👍 I have taken Time to understand each one.. But i guess they would be different on say a Mirrorless camera system? Sensors are also an important part of the imaging process. Nothing is "Perfect" what ever that means.
On my older Sony NEX-3, a purplish vignetting seems to be related to the angle of entrance of rays to the corners of the sensor. To what extent have newer sensors improved their handling of this effect with wide, non-retrofocus lenses? That would be a good topic as well--I know I reach specifically for this camera to get that unique wide-angle fall-off for moody subjects.
One thing I don't hear discussed very often when comparing lenses is light transmission. I'm not an expert on the subject but can give an example from a test I've done. I have Nikon's 200-500 5.6 lens, a recently acquired nikon 500 f4 p lens and two nikon d750 cameras. When I have both lenses side by side on tripods at 500mm at f5.6 with identical shutter speed and iso, the 500 f4 is half a stop brighter. To maintain the same exposure I need to increase the iso or shutter speed on the 200-500(zoomed out to 500) half a stop. This is not a huge deal but if you want to shoot wide open and maintain the same exposure and shutter speed, the difference in reality between the lenses is a stop and a half, even though it's only a one stop difference on paper.
@@MotoRich900 whatever the reason I'm sure it's something many people aren't aware of! Although there are bigger factors to consider when choosing a lens than a half stop of light.
Not perfect all the time is so true. 👌🏻 Everyone runs away from noise using Topaz apps to clean them up - especially in bird photography. Even in composing, a lot of retouching to get the “cleanest” shot. Well now everything looks fake and looks like a CG render! Let’s give things character when we can. Also WCC filter system is great and well made, albeit a bit unwieldy. You need more patience than I’ve had. I’m selling mine. 🤐
This topic of choosing lenses don't bother to many photographers!! They just know expensive lenses give them versatility that isn't available from less expensive lenses and those who can afford to buy much expensive lenses they do it and some of them are experienced photographers too, who produce results which aren't known to them as to why they got such results that amazes even their own eyes because they only know fast lenses are capable of giving them using faster shutter speeds and wider apertures and that is the reason for stunning photography!! They are right in the thinking but they little know about the spherical aberration and chromatic aberration are painstakingly removed from the expensive lenses and so with the color effects and pin cushion effects and barrel effects are lessened by the lens makers by adding layers after layers of coatings and the lements of the concave and convex lenses are added to make those lenses heavier and expensive construction to give you results required for certain kind of photographic needs!! Now the question is if we really need such lenses all the time or occasionally or we could do our job met with cheaper lenses!! Suppose you are in a studio to shoot portraits, for example, you can easily use a cheaper lens with stopping down to f-22 /f-32 and we can have our job done with much the same of our expectations as it's not sufficient to produce the same results outdoors because you have to care about your background and the light conditions not entirely dependent on your wish and in this case you require an expenditure on equipments to suit your needs and faster lenses are one of the prime importance like the shoots for vigorously unsettled subject or light conditions and if you have to be a winner you have to afford to or go rental for the hugely costlier lenses but you know, to be on rent isn't an available option everywhere in the world and you have to compromise on your quality of work!! But low budget lenses and manual focus ones are a deterrent to photograph when we need to be nimble enough to capture a fleeting moment and you lose images and having said that the vintage manual focus lenses are sometimes required for effects which cannot be achieved by super expensive lenses without smearing grease and oils and using stocking-holes on filters or using expensive filters like good ND filters to reduce movements, produce wispy images, and reduce blemishes and these methods sometimes hurt your expensive filters too but still for the sake of photography you sometimes go whole length to bring about a desired effect you have to make!! You don't want to hurt your art any way!!
One of my biggest questions about lens design has always been this: why is it that (and it seems like a recent development, but I could be wrong) that so many people are concerned with corner sharpness while shooting wide open on fast lenses? Most of the scene, and almost certainly the corners, are going to be out of focus anyways, so why does it matter how sharp those areas are? It seems like having out-of-focus areas rendered super-sharply could actually be counter-productive. There are exceptions of course, especially if you are shooting at or near infinity. But for portraits and more general applications? I can't help but feel like it's a waste. But...like you said, lenses are tools. Just because a tool doesn't suit my needs doesn't make it useless. It's just not for me. ;)
If I'm taking 20 photos of a building to make a huge stitched together piece, I'ma want a lense that does good on the corners. Sometimes the entire scene needs to be rendered with proper full sharpened, like landscapes. I do timelapses-- I don't want the corner of my light trail photos to be blurry. There's lot of reasons to fend off the corner blur.
@@4partmedia those examples wouldn't normally be shot wide open, though. I think the original question is still valid. I've always thought corner sharpness wide open is largely pointless except in the case of astrophotography
@@4partmedia Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not panning corner sharpness in general. Any lens that isn't reasonably sharp across the whole frame once it's stopped down is probably a poor design or built to poor tolerances. But are you really going to be doing composite photos of buildings or landscapes at f/1.4? If you are, then yes, these new massive lenses like the Zeiss Otus line are perfect for you. Sorry about your wallet though.... ;)
Would have loved to see Some close shots of the actual design of the lenses and demo of their performances in video as well. Intriguing concept . Thanks :)
Long time fan of your series. I'm definitely interested in more episodes about lens design. FWIW, my Loxia 50mm lives on my camera, except for portraits and macros. Heh...that might be a good topic: Why the design of macro lenses makes almost all of them optically excellent, but why that doesn't work for a lot of other types of photography.
I bought the elmar 35mm f3.5 just for the looks and I love the look but man the image quality is amazing, at f3.5, it feels like shooting at f2.8-f2 just because of the way leica designs its lens to have the subject separation, that's where the leica pop is coined from.
I just want to go out and test my old lenses! I’m not yet in digital, but I have purchased a Minolta XD 105 f2.8 and a 50 f1.4 that I will put to these kind of “certification”. I cannot wait for my Mamiya lenses as well!
Ok, ok, you convinced me, I just ordered my filters from Wine country Camera for my 14-24mm Nikon landscape lens and an additional adapter for my 17-24mm Nikon lens. Best of all I used your code and you saved me over 200 dollars!! THANKS!! You the man!
Great video Ted - I have been using a battered old Nikkor 35mm 2.8 AI lens for about 90% of my photography, leaving "fancy" 24-85 and 70-200 2.8s in the closet for the most part. Understanding and embracing the results from the gear, spending time with it and investing effort in practice are so important. Thank you for doing this - would be fun to get a similar video about results one can get with "nifty fifty" lens - the good old 50 1.8s - I feel that a lot of people tend to overlook these.
Just to add to your points about an f/1.2 lens versus an f/1.8, the 1.2 will allow you to shoot a lower ISOs in certain situations, say ISO 2000 versus ISO 5000.
Great video! I was just having this same conversation about lenses being tools the other day because I sold my Zeiss 35 f2.8 Sony lens and replaced it with a manual focus Voigtlander 35 f1.2. If you listen to the internet forums, I'm completely off my gourd, but the Zeiss (as nice and crisp as it was) was just not what I was looking for in a lens. Too clinical. There is no perfect anything. Lenses are tools, and the proof is in the success of the final image not the DXO chart.
Ohh! Finally someone who appreciates 35mm 1.2 Voigtlander. I have been using this lens for a very long time now. I was using it when I had the Leica M9. Now I'm with a Sony A7, I bought an adapter and still using this 35mm Voigtlander. It's just something about its rendering that is really different.
Good idea to make this series - better than just talking about (novel) digital cameras. I have used the Canon 85/1.8 EF lens - which I sold years ago. I was not too thrilled by it especially with its severe chromatic aberrations. Okay for portraits but I rather used my 135/2 L lens in comparison. Agree with your statement that imperfections make a lens even more valuable for the taken image - one example is the Leica 50/2 Summitar LTM lens which gives a wonderful circular bokeh in the background. Newer lenses don't do this.
There is definitely a move on to use manual focus lenses on high megapixel mirrorless cameras. They are smaller, lighter, and produce better images then almost any auto focus lenses. Besides with focus peeking in a high resolution EVF the human eye makes the final focus decision and that’s always superior to auto....plus the latest pro mirrorless camera the Leica SL2 has its sensor designed specially to use those manual focus lenses.
I think a lot of marketing goes into lens design. For example, if you can have a 600mm zoom that does f/5.6, then you should be able to make a prime at that length and speed that is cheaper, lighter, and with higher image quality. However, nobody does that. Instead they'll make a gigantic f/4 instead and charge 5x as much for it. They don't want to make a more reasonable f/5.6 because then nobody would buy the f/4 outside of even smaller niche users than already buy it. Or they will use unrounded aperature blades, not to save $5 on the cost, but so that people buy the lens that costs 2x more. Certainly there are constraints and compromises that designers have to use. I just think that a lot of the lens options are artificially constrained to push people into higher price levels. And I get that more options cost more money, but they could drop the $250 f/1.8 with angular blades and introduce a $260 version with angular blades. That wouldn't cost them more, but now they won't sell half as many $800 f/1.4 lenses...
Now this is talking about "gear" that I actually enjoy...Will be waiting for your next video of this series. Thanks!
"There's a lot to be said about not having everything perfect all the time." ..... What every photographer needs to hear. Thanks Ted, love what your doing.
I'm a senior lens design engineer in one of the big companies, which also makes a lot of industrial metrology. So the title of this video caught my eye for sure 😀. I liked what you said and I confirm, it's very true 👍. A huge portion of my time is balancing the requirements and specs to achieve the relevant points with common sense. If it was just about making it as perfect as possible, it was way easier. We have to make a product, optimal for its job, including all aspects like cost, weight and much more. That's the reason, why there are so many different lenses out there. We have in fact excellent design software nowadays, this help enormously in the process of optimizing the lens design. In the 80es, lens designer were mathematicians and physicists, today we are rather hands-on engineers with good math and physics background. The critical thing which needs a lot of experience is telling the software, in which direction it has to optimize...
Hi Ted, nice work, I enjoyed that. I think one of the biggest things I've learned having tested camera lenses for over 25 years now is not to assume one is going to deliver better results simply because it has a larger aperture or higher price tag. I've seen f1.8 models regularly out-perform f1.4 models in terms of corner to corner sharpness, even when the latter are stopped down, although to be fair this applies more to lenses from a few years ago. Plus if you're into bokeh blobs, the moment you begin to stop down, the shape is of course influenced by the aperture blade shape, so a 50mm f1.8 at f1.8 might look nicer than a 50mm f1.4 at f1.8 - it'll almost certainly be more rounded anyway. Secondly, optical design and materials science is constantly improving, and a lens which was considered amazing even just a few years ago may be comfortably beaten by a newer design. I'm amazed at how almost every new lens released now aces all the benchmarks and performs at levels we could only dream of a few short years ago. Another major thing I've learned is that striving for the highest optical quality can end up giving you a result that's overly clinical and lacking character. I know some of my favourite lenses are not my sharpest ones, but instead the ones which deliver the most attractive rendering for me personally. And that's what I love about them, that they give a character that appeals on a subjective level rather than ticking all the test boxes. I can tell you which lenses are the sharpest, but you might not get on with them personally! Looking forward to the rest of this series...
Excellent points Gordon!
I'm about to say the same thing, but you have beaten me to it. I own both versions for Nikon's F mount 85mm and 50mm. In both cases the f1.8 out perform both in sharpness, CA and often have faster AF as well.
However, I still take my f1.4 lenses. They fit my artistic vision better. I mostly do children and pet photography and sharpness isn't really a concern and I do prefer the look those f1.4 lenses produce. Again, this is something personal.
one thing i missed in the video and in this comment (i'm a fan of you two) is that exclusivity in photography is also a thing. leica and zeiss, for instance, are also about exclusivity. you are buying status. it doesn't matter how much one says a particular lens from those two brands doesn't beat a less expensive one, having a lens from either of them is a statement of financial power, of a priviledged group, that you are part of a group of people very few can be part of.
i mean, a person can live very modestly in all aspects just so they can afford expensive photo gear, but until people find out about this, you are making a statement you simply cannot make with other brands. for instance, i think that nikon noct is a work-of-art, but if leica or zeiss does the same, even if it has a less high performance, but costs twice as much, it will be worth more. the brand name and what it represents plays a big role there.
a brand that knows how to play with people's emotion and make them see it as more valuable without really being as valuable or not that much more valuable is something to admire and be recognize. by the way, some improvements in lens design first appear in expensive lenses, so it's the people who can buy exclusivity that are opening the doors to new technologies.
I prefer not so perfect results! I want image that sing not technical crap. Bravo.
This why I mostly shoot with vintage lenses because perfect pictures bored me lol
Vintage lenses DO create perfect pictures, they did back then 😅🤔 and they're CHEAP lol
I've been really loving older lenses lately. We just got a 6 lens cine-modded kit of Super Takumars and they've been amazing. The flares are incredible. Paired with the BMPCC 6k theyre sharp and hold detail well but don't have a ton of micro contrast which has been really nice for skin renditions.
Many people dont even know there are differences with the same lens,as in if you bought 2 of the same 105mm,they both can be different.That's why I learned to use ONE lens until you learn everything it can do.Learn to move,walk,raise the camera,lower it,and do whatever you need to get your shots framed .I use new glass and old,and I do not 'switch'.I use what i have,no matter if i have something new or not.
If one is a prime shooter - like me - don’t waist your money on a very expensive perfectly corrected lens with 15 elements. You’ve just eliminated the reason why you are a prime shooter because you’ve just lost the micro-contrast and depth you can capture with a 5-7 element lens. This is why some older lenses are still the best. If the lens is not perfect in the corners...SO WHAT. By the 15th element those poor little photons that make it through the gauntlet are exhausted.
People do not take a magnifying glass and inspect the extreme corners of your photo. In fact vignetting often improves a photo. Why would anyone spend twice as much, loose depth, contrast and that 3-D feel so the fly buzzing through the corner is perfectly rendered? The obsession with how the extreme corners come out is a lens manufacturer’s selling point for those who are obsessed with such things and have money to burn and a chiropractor to adjust their neck.
Today’s lenses are designed using computers and lazars and even the less expensive ones are perhaps better performers than the world class ones of 20-30 years ago. Improve your photos by improving your eye for composition and knowing the equipment you’re using as well as how to spell you name. A $2000 lens will not do that.
Love that little Loxia lens... I use a lot of Meyer Optik Gorlitz lenses that are new but from old lens designs. They are a lot of fun.
I buy L series glass for my canon cameras, and I don’t think about lens performance because after using my 24-70mm f2.8L mk ii for a year now, I am satisfied that I don’t want to know anything in particular about it’s optical characteristics. It’s 🔥, and that’s all I need to know.
L stands for Lots of money
IMO most lenses can deliver great results when you work within their limitations. Some of my favourite lenses are most definitely not the most expensive! An example is the $120 Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 (nikon mount). All the pro reviews indicate it is not worth having, but I love it! I have obtained some really nice portraits from it at ~120mm, and with a bit of care you can easily get good background separation. It's great for general sports action in good light too. I've used it with film too. I note that it typically gets 4.5 to 5 stars in real world user reviews too.. it does a fantastic job on a budget.
Yes! Let's get nerdy on lens design and the corresponding measurements. I've been hoping for more photography/technical oriented videos rather than the 'look at the latest toys' type gear review.
great series TED! I enjoy using unique vintage wide aperture glass as well as new glass that are very well made, manual focus all the way for me, NO AF, I love the feel that you work to get to your images.
Holy smokes! Ted as a long time subscriber I've yearned for a series like that for years!!!!
Ted, this should be an intresting series. I have a loxia 35mm and a 50mm. I really like the loxia 21mm for doing buildings in the city. These are great lenses and I do not use them enough. On the Canon 85mm, you get a different result on full frame and cropped frame.
I love how much you talk about Theory. As for knowing lens design "flaws", I typically do as much research as humanly possible before I buy something. Then I test it really quick to make sure it's not a bad copy (got one once that I quickly returned), then I stop worrying about the flaws whenever I shoot. They become part of my image and I'm totally ok with it.
Side note. I have a Canon 85 1.8 and I absolutely LOVE it. It's been basically the only lens I used on my a7iii until I started testing a 28mm f/2 to compare against the new Tamron 24mm f/2.8
Nice to see a generalised approach to the subject of the tools we use, rather just reviewing/flogging new products. After all, the show is called The Art of Photography and not the commerce of cameras.
Liked the description of the Zeiss/Biogon designed lens. Would be nice if you could look at some of the features of other classic lens designs, e.g. Tessar, Planar, Sonnar etc I’d like to understand the characteristic of these lenses as many of the famous photographers that used them in the past produced different ‘looks’.
That Loxia F2/35mm is a gem (note my use of a technical term here 😱😀😀). I use it for Street and Urban/Non - Urban Landscape. Early next year its one of two lenses off to Antarctica. Quality lens without bulking your camera body. Agree with your comments re f stop and image characteristics. And in these times it's great to have a depth of field scale on a lens body, as you mention so handy for zone focusing Street, but even in setting up Landscape.
Older photographer here with a message to new photographers. Watch this video multiple times. There is a tremendous amount of information presented in a short video. One of the most important things advised, learn the focal length characteristics of each of your lenses. EG, One of my favorite lenses is tack sharp only between f4 and f8.
The only thing of value that I can add to this video: very fast glass ( f1.2, f1.4) rarely has value for the majority of photographers. It’s value is however, in dim light where getting a sharp image is of little value. Examples, nightclub scenes, night street scenes, you intend to add grain to dark imagery and moody imagery. These are examples where having a tack sharp mage may work against your intent.
Hope you find this interesting. Again, watch this video many times. He is giving a lot.
Best to all, D
As someone who also shoots with the Loxia 35mm, I'd love to hear more about the lens' history. Great video! Thanks again, Ted.
The Zeiss Biogon started out as a fixed aperture F8. 90º field of view lens for Aerial Photogrammetry
@@johndavidwolf4239 Thank you. That's fascinating.
Really enjoyed your voice of reason and logic in the sea of hyperbole and extremism that is lens discussion today. Roger Cicala
I need to make a video with YOU Roger. You're the MAN!
@@theartofphotography If ever there was a face that belonged behind the camera, not in front of it, I'm it. :-)
Though I like the vast majority of the content on this channel, I think it's videos like this that make this channel really shine and stand out from the rest. Looking forward to see more videos in this series. Keep up the great work Ted!
Great info for sure. I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that some good homework with any lens will render much better photos.
I completely agree with your take on pancake lenses! For me it's just too limited in what it does for me. I'll take my 18 to 55mm kit lens any day. It's also makes a better macro lens and it's a lot easier on my 70 year old legs.
The popular Helios is also a biogon design. It has really strange bokeh. However, many folks really love the circular bokeh of that lens and incorporate that into their photos. When used on purpose they can really take artistic advantage of the lens peculiarities. Great video.
Ted, I could sit and listen to you talk about this stuff all day. Very much looking forward to seeing where this series goes.
It's crazy looking at Zeiss and knowing they also designed and manufactured the optics of every WW2 German tank.
I guess they were pretty sharp and had little distortion back then too, if you can use them to aim a tank down 1000 metres
Very good as always with your presentation. I am an amateur astronomer also, and study optics etc. One concept I have never heard photographers speak about is the ABBE number. This gets complicated and I suspect you are going to have to research this, because I cannot present a lot of technical data. ABBE refers to the quality of the glass. The range is from 20 to 90 on the X axis. This is broken down into two major categories. 1. Flint glass (cheap) and Crown glass, which is higher quality. The CROWN numbers begin at 55 and goes to 90. The higher the quality of glass material adds to the cost. I suspect that the Nikon NOCT, 58mm is probably of the highest quality glass. If so, that would put it in a category of a professional grade telescope used for research at a university. This is conjecture on my part, but I suspect that the T-Stops are probably related to the ABBE numbers also. An excellent T-stop would be at or about the same number as the F/stop. The cheaper the lens the further the T-stop number is from the F/stop number. I have never seen any research on this concept in the world of photography. Maybe you could research this and present a video? Please let me know if you do. Mike Malloy, Corpus Christi, Tx
Stanley Kubrick used old lenses to create different atmospheres on film. He was a still photographer in the first place. People should try a 5x4 camera with shift tilt and swing movements. Great effects with almost any lens or even with a pinhole
Geek note: f/1.2 can either be a half stop or a third stop faster than f/1.4 depending on which scale you're using. In my experience with old manual focus Nikon glass at least, I've found that it's typically the latter, even though it's priced more like it's the former.
One more reason to test before you buy.
Love the new series, but I was wondering why you hardly ever do anything about Leica lenses and the whole Leica M system. I've recently upgraded my Sony A6000 to a Leica M10 as I was getting more serious about street photography and it completely changed my way of shooting. In addition to this, the whole Leica M lens system is completely different than that of any other manufacturer - basically all the lenses have character like the Zeiss lens you showed in this video. I love your channel and your thoughts, so I would love to hear your thoughts about the Leica M system! :)
Well said. I personally love old vintage lenses with all their quirks and imperfection. In the age of perfection in photography, some oddities in the photo are welcomed :)
That being said, I do use the best lens that I can afford for paid gigs. For personal projects, any lens will do :D
This was one of the most informative videos on lenses I have seen. What really hit "home" so to speak is the idea of learning your lens "sweet spots". I have heard that before but you really hit it on the head. Thanks for the informative video.
Back in the day when I started out I bought a cheap APS-C super Zoom (tamron something?) and brought on travel. It looked like crap for most shots and needed lots of post processing, barely usable - except for tele. It actually took great photos for the price when shooting an outdoor concert in Germany. For that time, the tele shots was some of my best shots.
When I first started in photography I knew less than zero about lenses. After having an experience where I stopped a lens down to f22 (because I had read the higher the f number, the sharper the image) and the images all turned out horrible, I decided to learn more about lenses. Now I know the characteristics of my individual lenses as far as sharpness, corner to corner sharpness, what the lens will do at each aperture step, focal distance etc and more importantly, why they are performing the way they do. I look forward to this series.
Really excited for this series. Looking forward to more episodes
The Lensdays idea is really great. I think with so many camera bodies being in such a state of flux and there being such a proliferation of peripherals and other gadgets, lenses have been neglected on photography TH-cam lately. And something that wasn't just reviews of the latest release, but with your focus on craft, fundamentals and a longer view of the subject will be really great. It will definitely keep me refreshing your page for more.
This is interesting. For more than 30 years I worked as a photojournalist, and over the years I owned many different lenses, for many years carrying as many as 12 with me everywhere, every day. My back will never be right again, but I had to be ready for anything under any condition, and I usually had to work fast. As you said, different lenses can be right for certain situations. But the most important consideration was to get the image of the moment, even if it wasn't technically perfect. In later years, I got into art photography, mostly landscapes and wildlife. Fortunately my lineup of Canon L lenses, which I had needed for sports, were also wonderful for the new work. Not long after digital image capturing essentially replaced film as the recording medium, I moved on to other endeavors. I have had two digital fixed lens cameras, but I am now coming back to photography and catching up on all the technical advancements of the last 15 years or so. One thing that hasn't changed, is that the most important physical tool in the lens.
Hi Ted, in this new series, could you make one video, in which you explain what you do with a new lens? How do you test it? How do you determine all these things you listed in your video that the user should know about a lens' behavior?
Now this topic speaks to my soul! I love lenses of all types and formats. Lenses, they are the eyes of photography and without eyes, there's no vision.
I remember when Sony came out with their full frame A7 for a while afterwards many people was saying "where is all the good lens" all they had was the kit lens and the 70-200 F4 which I still have.
Regarding your question around 9:10: Absolutely YES! I like to test every lens I try to get a feel for it.
My response to your Zeiss Loxia is my old pre-Ai Nikkor 55mm f/1.2. Wide open it gets less contrasty and a bit hazy (it's still sharp under the haze though) and renders huge, oval bokeh. Stopped down to f/2 the haze goes away and the contrast improves, but its seven straight aperture blades kinda murder bokeh on point sources, but less specular bokeh is nice. Corner performance is a bit lacking until f/4 or so, but my corners are rarely in focus anyways. At f/11 it renders amazing sunstars, and since it's the old pre-AI body the focus throw is massive so fine tuning focus or setting up for zone focus or hyperfocal shooting is a snap. It's really like three or four lenses in one!
Only cost me $125 last year, and it's been one of my most commonly used lenses since then.
Yes, Ted returning to form. Don't het me wrong, I'm fine with the gear reviews. But to me the true strength of your channel was always this. Talking about the art and/or the technical side of achieving results with whatever in stead of the latest and greatest.
I used a pancake 40mm lens on a Canon 6dMk2 for one of the days of the NYC street photography workshop last April. The profile of this lens on the street outweighed the image compromises I knew would occur. Good discussion - almost as geeky as Tony N.
I have a loxia35 too, loved it. And focus peaking makes it easier to use
Lenses are like music instruments. Playing with them is pleasurable
Very interesting approach.
YES my Loxia 35mm f2 does NOT have that imperfection in the Bokeh that yours has. I also own the new 35mm 1.8 FE that you named the "Lens of the year" and I like the images from the Loxia WAY more. Thanks for the years of great work Ted.
I had been looking for a 85mm f/1.4 for a couple of years and hadn't quite found one which I thought was optically right. I popped into my local camera store, the day the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Milvus came in (by accident), tried it and fell in love. A month later, I bought the lens.
Unfortunately, whilst I love the lens, it just turned out to be a bit of a pain to use on my D800. Having to manual focus, just gots in the way of me shooting portraits, as I like to talk to the client, then quickly pop the camera up, focus and take the shot.
Unfortunately, the Milvus just slowed me down too much and in the end I bought the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4e which whilst not as optically good, ends up being used the vast majority of the time, whilst my Milvus sits in the bag.
Finding the right lens, isn't just about optics, there are a whole range of things, which are important and the worst lens, is one you never end up using.
Fingers crossed, when I eventually buy a Nikon full frame, the Milvus will come out to play again much more.
I HIGHLY recommend looking into the process of optical contacting. It might not be explicitly photography based but its definitely a source of great intrigue to be had.
To your question:
When I first got into mirrorless I used a lot (like A LOT) of analog era lenses. And I would always just check them out fully for the purpose I needed them. Since I used the lenses for portraiture, I always checked my lenses for middle sharpness, corner sharpness and the bokeh.
An example which comes to mind was the Jupiter-9 85mm f2, lovely lens, just not sharp at f2, stopped down it performs well, but the center sharpness really was just center sharpness. Any subject I shot with the lens had to be in the middle of the image, anything other than center would just fall into unsharp territory.
Nowadays I seem to be gearing up towards a full AF lens lineup with a 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 which are both so sharp wide open I tend not to worry, though I do still look for it.
But there are so many lenses which have their own taste, especially with older glass. Nowadays it seems like the character of those lenses are considered flaws and the manufacturers do their best to rid lenses of those.
ted, where is the artist serie? T-T its been sooooooo long since the last one
Yes! You took the words right out of my mouth. Ted - I miss the artist series videos, and your history of photography type videos where you talk about and introduce us to different influential photographers. Everyone is talking about gear. Your old style videos set you apart from the pack. I miss the old Ted Forbes videos!
Yes, some episodes of the Artist series are one of the few things on TH-cam I go back to and replay...... and replay! I learnt so much from these. They led me to Sally Mann, Saul Leiter, Keith Carter, Graciela Iturbide, and the list goes on. The only downside were the £££s I spent on chasing books of these photographers’ works. I know the Artist series is very demanding of your time, Ted, but it really sets you apart.
Thank you for doing a video like this, coupling gear to results and showing what you mean.
I will always be a gear head. I'm a sound technician by profession, and a photographer by passion. And I have a thing for old gear, because I sometime want a certain color in my sound, or a certain texture in my photos. I use the unsharpness to tell me where to look, or how to let my eyes read the picture. Just like I use old microphones to put instruments in the back or the front of a sound mix. It's about perspective, to me.
I got what you are saying about having two lenses of similar focal lengths. I have two 80mm for my Mamiya m645. I like the 1.9 for portraits and close focussed pictures. The background not only gets out of focus, but also less contrasty, and this I really like. But for forest pictures that I want to be crisp, this lens really does not work. The 80mm f2.8, being a straight planar design really does do a good job at infinity focus.
I experimented with lenses on my digital camera a lot. I have a cheap RJ Focal Reducer on it, in FD mount. The upshot of FD is that you can convert it to Nikon AI and M42 easily with a cheap ring. So I tried lot's of 50mm lenses this way.
I found a Mamiya 55mm f1.4. Loved it, loved the colors. It's somehow more saturated than other lenses. And the reds are detaild, while they fill up to solids on other lenses I tried. I hardly ever tool it of my camera. Then I dropped it, and the aperture dial broke internally.
I got myself another Mamiya 55mm f1.4, this time a slightly more modern copy. It is as good. It is sharp and the bokeh is smooth and out of the way. Backgrounds do go to the background. It is sharper than the old one. Lens test will say it is "better". This has been my default lens for a few years.
But one day I decided to open up the old copy. I fixed the aperture dial, put it on my camera and found my old voice again.
When you suspected we would be glazing over, you were finally touching on what I expected to hear. If you don't cover the depths, I'm not sure who will.... Thanks!
This video deserves a million likes, everything was put on well and what many you tubers fail to say, but he is not a you tuber, this gentleman is a photographer, thank you for speaking the truth!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Thankyou. Learning new interesting stuff I didnt know I wanted to know but am now glad I know ... looking forward to Lensdays now
As I am on a tight budget, and a hobby photographer, I recently acquired an a7r2 and some Takumars and Ai Nikon series E lenses. Tremendous fun! With a Canon Pro100 printer, I'm in pig heaven! Tip: Takumar 50mm f4 macro is truly awesome!
I watched this because i bought the loxia 35, what a lovely lens for street photography. Thanks for the hints and tips on using it
Really nice video. It would be interesting to see a breakdown video of maybe vintage vs modern lenses, how did the internals change during years, how lenses physically work etc :)
Nice...
Particularly the reasoning at 7: 15 minutes on, to some moments after...
Rapid fire could be slowed down....
Loved this episode, Ted. History, context, personal impressions. The perfect mix. And I learned things. Nothing is better than that.
If you are going to discuss lens design and character, i think the two things that are absolutely essential but overlooked:
Lens temperture (i.e. coolness/warmness), and Color Rendering* (Smoothness + contrast + palette, of tones, etc)
I adore my Loxia 35/f2, but I also have a Samyang 35/f2.8 and a 24-70/f2.8. Different tools for different jobs. The Loxia won't always get the technically best photographs or the most usable photographs, but of those lenses, it is the most fun because it has the most engaging shooting experience.
Yep! Sony FE 70-200mm, sharpest at 135mm and wide open! The trio of Sigma 1.4 primes get pretty sharp at 2.8, sharpest at 8, and diffraction sets in soon after. The 30mm's CA is pretty bad until f/4.
I really enjoy how you're highlighting that different lenses have different trade-offs. That's a very uncommon thing in our technological wank era.
Another example with the 85mm is the focus speed. The larger the aperture, the larger the elements get, and the more mass that the motors need to push around.
Very interesting topic!! I think there are different types of lens buyers. You are absolutely right on how lenses are tools as much as cameras, something that's easy to forget when you have so many options and price tags. I for example use a lot an old soviet Industar 50-2 originally designed for rangefinder cameras but easily adapted to an SLR. It's really small and makes a great pair for an SLR like a pentax K100 to carry on everywhere. As you mention, it comes with a loss on sharpness and other aspects, but that's not the main reason why I carry the lens.
I think a good subject to touch on (and also interesting) is how lens design varies in between camera formats like 6x6 or 4x5 or even further 8x10.
Very excited for these new series!
You hv a excellent n crisp voice pronouncing every word n can be easily catch n understood instantly Tks for the great advice Really luv your channel🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
As a retiree on a penny-pincher's pecuniary pension a used A7RII with Super-Taks, Zeiss Jena, and Meyer-Optik lenses intrigue me more than superior performance lenses (90mm macro and 55mm Ziess)
What looms potential in the future might be ultra thin lenses designed at MIT and curved sensors. Got pre-GAS.
BTW I'm so glad that you're using Capture One and highlighting some of many tools it has.
Ted, a topic I think many of us collectors might enjoy would be an explanation of the so-called "Sonnar signature" and some examples of the effect in various manufacturer's lenses. The design is widely available across brands, giving most of us easy opportunity to use it's effects more intentionally. I know I love my Canon 50mm f/1/5 screw mount, petite and chunky compared to the standard f/1.8 complement.
Yes Ted i understand how my lens perform 👍
I have taken Time to understand each one..
But i guess they would be different on say a Mirrorless camera system?
Sensors are also an important part of the imaging process.
Nothing is "Perfect" what ever that means.
Perfect? Oh, there's a utopia out there. Lot's are looking for it.
On my older Sony NEX-3, a purplish vignetting seems to be related to the angle of entrance of rays to the corners of the sensor. To what extent have newer sensors improved their handling of this effect with wide, non-retrofocus lenses? That would be a good topic as well--I know I reach specifically for this camera to get that unique wide-angle fall-off for moody subjects.
So true. I have not been lusting for new lenses for years. I found peace with my cheap second hand primes. :)
One thing I don't hear discussed very often when comparing lenses is light transmission. I'm not an expert on the subject but can give an example from a test I've done.
I have Nikon's 200-500 5.6 lens, a recently acquired nikon 500 f4 p lens and two nikon d750 cameras. When I have both lenses side by side on tripods at 500mm at f5.6 with identical shutter speed and iso, the 500 f4 is half a stop brighter. To maintain the same exposure I need to increase the iso or shutter speed on the 200-500(zoomed out to 500) half a stop.
This is not a huge deal but if you want to shoot wide open and maintain the same exposure and shutter speed, the difference in reality between the lenses is a stop and a half, even though it's only a one stop difference on paper.
That's due to the transmission T value loss on the 200-500 vs the 500 prime
@@MotoRich900 whatever the reason I'm sure it's something many people aren't aware of! Although there are bigger factors to consider when choosing a lens than a half stop of light.
Not perfect all the time is so true. 👌🏻 Everyone runs away from noise using Topaz apps to clean them up - especially in bird photography. Even in composing, a lot of retouching to get the “cleanest” shot. Well now everything looks fake and looks like a CG render! Let’s give things character when we can.
Also WCC filter system is great and well made, albeit a bit unwieldy. You need more patience than I’ve had. I’m selling mine. 🤐
I really enjoyed this first instalment of your new series. More please and thank you 😊
Great video & I hope you continue the series.
Those filters... holy smokes, theyre expensive!
yeh really, wow...
Yes but I want to buy those filters anyway ☺️
This topic of choosing lenses don't bother to many photographers!! They just know expensive lenses give them versatility that isn't available from less expensive lenses and those who can afford to buy much expensive lenses they do it and some of them are experienced photographers too, who produce results which aren't known to them as to why they got such results that amazes even their own eyes because they only know fast lenses are capable of giving them using faster shutter speeds and wider apertures and that is the reason for stunning photography!! They are right in the thinking but they little know about the spherical aberration and chromatic aberration are painstakingly removed from the expensive lenses and so with the color effects and pin cushion effects and barrel effects are lessened by the lens makers by adding layers after layers of coatings and the lements of the concave and convex lenses are added to make those lenses heavier and expensive construction to give you results required for certain kind of photographic needs!! Now the question is if we really need such lenses all the time or occasionally or we could do our job met with cheaper lenses!! Suppose you are in a studio to shoot portraits, for example, you can easily use a cheaper lens with stopping down to f-22 /f-32 and we can have our job done with much the same of our expectations as it's not sufficient to produce the same results outdoors because you have to care about your background and the light conditions not entirely dependent on your wish and in this case you require an expenditure on equipments to suit your needs and faster lenses are one of the prime importance like the shoots for vigorously unsettled subject or light conditions and if you have to be a winner you have to afford to or go rental for the hugely costlier lenses but you know, to be on rent isn't an available option everywhere in the world and you have to compromise on your quality of work!! But low budget lenses and manual focus ones are a deterrent to photograph when we need to be nimble enough to capture a fleeting moment and you lose images and having said that the vintage manual focus lenses are sometimes required for effects which cannot be achieved by super expensive lenses without smearing grease and oils and using stocking-holes on filters or using expensive filters like good ND filters to reduce movements, produce wispy images, and reduce blemishes and these methods sometimes hurt your expensive filters too but still for the sake of photography you sometimes go whole length to bring about a desired effect you have to make!! You don't want to hurt your art any way!!
Very much looking forward to the lensdays series!
One of my biggest questions about lens design has always been this: why is it that (and it seems like a recent development, but I could be wrong) that so many people are concerned with corner sharpness while shooting wide open on fast lenses? Most of the scene, and almost certainly the corners, are going to be out of focus anyways, so why does it matter how sharp those areas are? It seems like having out-of-focus areas rendered super-sharply could actually be counter-productive.
There are exceptions of course, especially if you are shooting at or near infinity. But for portraits and more general applications? I can't help but feel like it's a waste.
But...like you said, lenses are tools. Just because a tool doesn't suit my needs doesn't make it useless. It's just not for me.
;)
If I'm taking 20 photos of a building to make a huge stitched together piece, I'ma want a lense that does good on the corners. Sometimes the entire scene needs to be rendered with proper full sharpened, like landscapes. I do timelapses-- I don't want the corner of my light trail photos to be blurry. There's lot of reasons to fend off the corner blur.
@@4partmedia those examples wouldn't normally be shot wide open, though. I think the original question is still valid. I've always thought corner sharpness wide open is largely pointless except in the case of astrophotography
@@4partmedia Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not panning corner sharpness in general. Any lens that isn't reasonably sharp across the whole frame once it's stopped down is probably a poor design or built to poor tolerances.
But are you really going to be doing composite photos of buildings or landscapes at f/1.4? If you are, then yes, these new massive lenses like the Zeiss Otus line are perfect for you. Sorry about your wallet though....
;)
Hi Ted, thank you so much for this. I always appreciate your videos. Looking forward to seeing more of this series !
I would love to hear your take on the Lensbaby lenses.
You summed everything up early, "Know your equipment." Nice first episode.
Would have loved to see Some close shots of the actual design of the lenses and demo of their performances in video as well. Intriguing concept . Thanks :)
Long time fan of your series. I'm definitely interested in more episodes about lens design. FWIW, my Loxia 50mm lives on my camera, except for portraits and macros. Heh...that might be a good topic: Why the design of macro lenses makes almost all of them optically excellent, but why that doesn't work for a lot of other types of photography.
SUPER excited for this series, man!!
You should be on Netflix. You make beautiful documentaries.
I still love the look I get with my Summicron F2
I bought the elmar 35mm f3.5 just for the looks and I love the look but man the image quality is amazing, at f3.5, it feels like shooting at f2.8-f2 just because of the way leica designs its lens to have the subject separation, that's where the leica pop is coined from.
I think you bounced around people's expectations/attitudes in regards to the subject, rather than focusing (no pun intended) on the subject itself.
I just want to go out and test my old lenses! I’m not yet in digital, but I have purchased a Minolta XD 105 f2.8 and a 50 f1.4 that I will put to these kind of “certification”. I cannot wait for my Mamiya lenses as well!
Ok, ok, you convinced me, I just ordered my filters from Wine country Camera for my 14-24mm Nikon landscape lens and an additional adapter for my 17-24mm Nikon lens. Best of all I used your code and you saved me over 200 dollars!! THANKS!! You the man!
Great video Ted - I have been using a battered old Nikkor 35mm 2.8 AI lens for about 90% of my photography, leaving "fancy" 24-85 and 70-200 2.8s in the closet for the most part. Understanding and embracing the results from the gear, spending time with it and investing effort in practice are so important. Thank you for doing this - would be fun to get a similar video about results one can get with "nifty fifty" lens - the good old 50 1.8s - I feel that a lot of people tend to overlook these.
Just to add to your points about an f/1.2 lens versus an f/1.8, the 1.2 will allow you to shoot a lower ISOs in certain situations, say ISO 2000 versus ISO 5000.
I'm very excited for this new series! I love these videos where I learn things I don't expect.
Great video! I was just having this same conversation about lenses being tools the other day because I sold my Zeiss 35 f2.8 Sony lens and replaced it with a manual focus Voigtlander 35 f1.2. If you listen to the internet forums, I'm completely off my gourd, but the Zeiss (as nice and crisp as it was) was just not what I was looking for in a lens. Too clinical.
There is no perfect anything. Lenses are tools, and the proof is in the success of the final image not the DXO chart.
Ohh! Finally someone who appreciates 35mm 1.2 Voigtlander. I have been using this lens for a very long time now. I was using it when I had the Leica M9. Now I'm with a Sony A7, I bought an adapter and still using this 35mm Voigtlander. It's just something about its rendering that is really different.
I had both. I sold the 35mm. It’s pretty boring. Though that 55mm is stellar
Good idea to make this series - better than just talking about (novel) digital cameras. I have used the Canon 85/1.8 EF lens - which I sold years ago. I was not too thrilled by it especially with its severe chromatic aberrations. Okay for portraits but I rather used my 135/2 L lens in comparison. Agree with your statement that imperfections make a lens even more valuable for the taken image - one example is the Leica 50/2 Summitar LTM lens which gives a wonderful circular bokeh in the background. Newer lenses don't do this.
Wow. A program on lenses. I’m in. Great work Ted. I can’t wait for the next one.
Good to see you man, very insightful episode, looking forward for the next 'lensdays'. Thanks a lot.
Hello Sir, i would like to ask what is the best lens for Nikon Z6 when you are shooting portrait? Thanks in advance.
There is definitely a move on to use manual focus lenses on high megapixel mirrorless cameras. They are smaller, lighter, and produce better images then almost any auto focus lenses. Besides with focus peeking in a high resolution EVF the human eye makes the final focus decision and that’s always superior to auto....plus the latest pro mirrorless camera the Leica SL2 has its sensor designed specially to use those manual focus lenses.
Thanks Ted, that was fascinating. Please make more Lensday videos.
I think a lot of marketing goes into lens design.
For example, if you can have a 600mm zoom that does f/5.6, then you should be able to make a prime at that length and speed that is cheaper, lighter, and with higher image quality.
However, nobody does that. Instead they'll make a gigantic f/4 instead and charge 5x as much for it. They don't want to make a more reasonable f/5.6 because then nobody would buy the f/4 outside of even smaller niche users than already buy it.
Or they will use unrounded aperature blades, not to save $5 on the cost, but so that people buy the lens that costs 2x more.
Certainly there are constraints and compromises that designers have to use. I just think that a lot of the lens options are artificially constrained to push people into higher price levels.
And I get that more options cost more money, but they could drop the $250 f/1.8 with angular blades and introduce a $260 version with angular blades. That wouldn't cost them more, but now they won't sell half as many $800 f/1.4 lenses...