those are double gauss derivatives
which actually predates tessar
tessar and sonnar were made to circumvent the glass technology limitations of that time
one thing i find curious though is that using that many elements literally forms a flatter image
not only a flatter field but the pics itself looks flatter
guess that's a trade off tho rjdna
most modern lenses feel flat because they have an abrupt change in their out of focus areas.
the best lenses, both modern and old, that give a "3D" look are the ones where the transition between the out of focus areas and the plane of focus is very smooth and pleasant.
an example of "flat" look would be like the bokeh you get when using a phone in portrait mode or a modern canon f/1.2 lens
most modern lenses feel flat because they have an abrupt change in their out of focus areas.
the best lenses, both modern and old, that give a "3D" look are the ones where the transition between the out of focus areas and the plane of focus is very smooth and pleasant.
an example of "flat" look would be like the bokeh you get when using a phone in portrait mode or a modern canon f/1.2 lens
as
those are double gauss derivatives
which actually predates tessar
tessar and sonnar were made to circumvent the glass technology limitations of that time
one thing i find curious though is that using that many elements literally forms a flatter image
not only a flatter field but the pics itself looks flatter
guess that's a trade off tho rjdna
points out, overcorrected lenses make for boring out of focus areas on the image, thus more "boring" images, which is completely subjective. but one can objectively analize such characteristics. see pic rel, its a comparison between the modern autofocus canon 50 1.2 (on the right) vs a cheap old porst 50 1.2 (on the left). see how the background "jumps" and moves on the porst, and how static it is on the canon.
since a portrait is a celebration of the subject portraited, youd expect the background to bend, articulate itself around the subject and compliment it, instead of just being there indifferent to the figure. if you apply gaussian blur effect on photoshop to a background you end up with something very like the canon image, but you cant accurately produce the old lens look with plugin (afaik), because its very dynamic and reacts depending on coating, formula, lens age, varying qc, etc.
No, you do want to correct the cats-eye, CA and spherical abberation that cause the bokeh in the left picture. It does not enhance pictures, only make them worse.
Correlated with fixing the cats-eye, spherical aberration and outlines on the edges of bokeh, is overcorrection around the plane of focus, where details like highlights that are just out of focus don't blur out smoothly but instead have hard edges and distract from where the focus actually is.
theres lots of ways of making quirky bokeh, thats one, and by a ultracheap lens on top. a contax planar T does animated bokeh in a very delightful way that i bet 9 out of 10 people would prefer to the soulless canon 50 1.2 one.
You'll notice that they're always specifying number of so so lenses in a number of groups. It's groups that are important. Elements in a group could be better executed by grinding a single element out of one piece, but it's simply more expensive that using several elements instead.
designers dont use their soul and eyes anymore. they design watching numbers. sure numbers helped lenses getting better, but look at those abominations with iphone fake bokeh.
those are gross as fuck. sp the center one, its like a can of pringles. the human eye doesnt look like that. how can that shit produce good pic? clearly it cant.
In alternate world where the SLR never took off, we have extremely high quality compact cameras with pin sharp, 0-distortion lenses and zooming optical viewfinders. Sure, then it gets difficult when it comes to digital, but digital was a red herring anyway.
SLR flange distances, and subsequently the advent of digital, made
https://i.imgur.com/3OipkRw.jpg
..to this
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:04:06 09:23:20Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1219Image Height652
necessary. With a 20-30mm flange distance, you can have symmetrical lens designs with few elements and almost zero distortion which fit into the palm of your hand, and fully featured cameras which fit into a jeans pocket like the Minolta CLE (so long as you can ignore ray angle.) The only downside is vignetting for wide angle lenses, but anything > 35mm is without compromise.
This is a nine element 21mm lens which is as long as your pinky finger and sharper than anything but the best modern designs in the 2k price range.
No, because of ray angle. You get sometimes extreme colour shifts in the corner, and a lot of smearing. You need a very thin filter stack, and special micro-lenses to make these lenses work on digital close to as well as they do on film. Leica have these on their digital M series cameras, but they still have to correct for colour cast in software. You see it if you look at the raw files in a program that doesn't have appropriate profiles.
Digital sensors are incompatible with acute ray angle. Sure you can have glass close to the sensor, but the designs are still going to be very complex so that the light comes out much more collimated. Flange distance and digital sensors both are less suitable for high-performance symmetrical designs, for slightly different reasons.
Cope, film lenses work as good on digital with maybe an exception on some Leica M ones because they take into consideration the microlenses in the sensor stack
>all
Wrong, see adapted to Leica SL or Nikon Z >rangefinder glass
Good thing rangefinder glass is not every pre-digital glass out there you dumb nagger
SLR flange distances, and subsequently the advent of digital, made [...] necessary. With a 20-30mm flange distance, you can have symmetrical lens designs with few elements and almost zero distortion which fit into the palm of your hand, and fully featured cameras which fit into a jeans pocket like the Minolta CLE (so long as you can ignore ray angle.) The only downside is vignetting for wide angle lenses, but anything > 35mm is without compromise.
This is a nine element 21mm lens which is as long as your pinky finger and sharper than anything but the best modern designs in the 2k price range.
>then it gets difficult when it comes to digital >and subsequently the advent of digital
I don't really understand what's so wrong about digital, I shoot film and digital but I'm not sure what's inherently wrong about the latter ? Is it because there's bound to be loss compared to analog ?
No, because of ray angle. You get sometimes extreme colour shifts in the corner, and a lot of smearing. You need a very thin filter stack, and special micro-lenses to make these lenses work on digital close to as well as they do on film. Leica have these on their digital M series cameras, but they still have to correct for colour cast in software. You see it if you look at the raw files in a program that doesn't have appropriate profiles.
, ray angle is the key property that these lenses are optimised around. They have rear elements really close to the film which then spread out the light at an acute angle to cover the 35mm image circle. That results in all the properties I described there. Look up any forum posts for wide angle rangefinder lenses + non-leica Mirrorless and you'll find many examples. The colour shift is correctable with Adobe Flat Field. The smearing needs a PCX filter to correct.
my bet is
sharp and contrasty af in the center softer at corners, due to less air to glass surfaces
not a symmetric design so image planes are not really plane and overcorrected for corner sharpness
low chromatic aberration
Our frail attempts to match the human eye.
As far as I know, most of the asian lens makers still make Tessar/Sonnar/Double Gauss lens designs for modern mounts.
The human eye has a curved sensor and a variable-refractive-index aspherical lens. Not to mention the world's most sophisticated post-processing.
[...] >then it gets difficult when it comes to digital >and subsequently the advent of digital
I don't really understand what's so wrong about digital, I shoot film and digital but I'm not sure what's inherently wrong about the latter ? Is it because there's bound to be loss compared to analog ?
>Not to mention the world's most sophisticated post-processing.
So when you think about it, the AI post processing in phones is actually more "real" photography than our cameras.
>How did we go from this..
Because there is no more photographers left, only photography equipment operators. In other words, what happened was a sea change from man to machines. Need proof? Take a good look at Youtubers on photography gear reviews. They're all machine like.
You can old design and cheap?
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7515086961/ttartisan-35mm-f2-apo-asph-m-mount-lens-50mm-f2-lens-for-aps-c-mirrorless-cameras#comments
..to this
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:04:06 09:23:20Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1219Image Height652
those are double gauss derivatives
which actually predates tessar
tessar and sonnar were made to circumvent the glass technology limitations of that time
one thing i find curious though is that using that many elements literally forms a flatter image
not only a flatter field but the pics itself looks flatter
guess that's a trade off tho rjdna
>using that many elements literally forms a flatter image
I see this claim a lot, but never see a shred of proof.
most modern lenses feel flat because they have an abrupt change in their out of focus areas.
the best lenses, both modern and old, that give a "3D" look are the ones where the transition between the out of focus areas and the plane of focus is very smooth and pleasant.
an example of "flat" look would be like the bokeh you get when using a phone in portrait mode or a modern canon f/1.2 lens
as
points out, overcorrected lenses make for boring out of focus areas on the image, thus more "boring" images, which is completely subjective. but one can objectively analize such characteristics. see pic rel, its a comparison between the modern autofocus canon 50 1.2 (on the right) vs a cheap old porst 50 1.2 (on the left). see how the background "jumps" and moves on the porst, and how static it is on the canon.
since a portrait is a celebration of the subject portraited, youd expect the background to bend, articulate itself around the subject and compliment it, instead of just being there indifferent to the figure. if you apply gaussian blur effect on photoshop to a background you end up with something very like the canon image, but you cant accurately produce the old lens look with plugin (afaik), because its very dynamic and reacts depending on coating, formula, lens age, varying qc, etc.
No, you do want to correct the cats-eye, CA and spherical abberation that cause the bokeh in the left picture. It does not enhance pictures, only make them worse.
Correlated with fixing the cats-eye, spherical aberration and outlines on the edges of bokeh, is overcorrection around the plane of focus, where details like highlights that are just out of focus don't blur out smoothly but instead have hard edges and distract from where the focus actually is.
theres lots of ways of making quirky bokeh, thats one, and by a ultracheap lens on top. a contax planar T does animated bokeh in a very delightful way that i bet 9 out of 10 people would prefer to the soulless canon 50 1.2 one.
>you do want to correct the spherical abberation
>It does not enhance pictures, only make them worse
Proofs? your shitstained tastes are not proofs
you chose a bad pic to illustrate this as the image on the right is overexposed so looks shitty regardless
It's cheaper to make this one.
You'll notice that they're always specifying number of so so lenses in a number of groups. It's groups that are important. Elements in a group could be better executed by grinding a single element out of one piece, but it's simply more expensive that using several elements instead.
too much science
Lens coatings happened allowing lens designers use moar lens groups.
So basically you're only getting your money's worth with the Nikon. The other two are severely lacking in the glass department
Have lens design gone too far? Is this image real?
designers dont use their soul and eyes anymore. they design watching numbers. sure numbers helped lenses getting better, but look at those abominations with iphone fake bokeh.
>that niggor
unelegant design is so gross.
...from this
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.4Image-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpcmVertical Resolution300 dpcmImage Created2019:02:15 15:54:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2000Image Height1621
and nothing of value was gained
Computers and PVD technology. Imo these were the biggest drivers of change in optics.
those are gross as fuck. sp the center one, its like a can of pringles. the human eye doesnt look like that. how can that shit produce good pic? clearly it cant.
Just try the Pentax Limiteds, they are all Tessar derivatives
SOVL
soulless mirrorless
vgh.... that german perfection..... bros I'm not feeling well...
In alternate world where the SLR never took off, we have extremely high quality compact cameras with pin sharp, 0-distortion lenses and zooming optical viewfinders. Sure, then it gets difficult when it comes to digital, but digital was a red herring anyway.
what's so bad about SLRs?
SLR flange distances, and subsequently the advent of digital, made
necessary. With a 20-30mm flange distance, you can have symmetrical lens designs with few elements and almost zero distortion which fit into the palm of your hand, and fully featured cameras which fit into a jeans pocket like the Minolta CLE (so long as you can ignore ray angle.) The only downside is vignetting for wide angle lenses, but anything > 35mm is without compromise.
This is a nine element 21mm lens which is as long as your pinky finger and sharper than anything but the best modern designs in the 2k price range.
but doesn't that mean now that mirrorless are the norm we will get back those designs?
No, because of ray angle. You get sometimes extreme colour shifts in the corner, and a lot of smearing. You need a very thin filter stack, and special micro-lenses to make these lenses work on digital close to as well as they do on film. Leica have these on their digital M series cameras, but they still have to correct for colour cast in software. You see it if you look at the raw files in a program that doesn't have appropriate profiles.
>SLR flange distances, and subsequently the advent of digital, made
..to this
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:04:06 09:23:20Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1219Image Height652 necessary.
That picture is all mirrorless lenses with glass very close to the sensor.
Digital sensors are incompatible with acute ray angle. Sure you can have glass close to the sensor, but the designs are still going to be very complex so that the light comes out much more collimated. Flange distance and digital sensors both are less suitable for high-performance symmetrical designs, for slightly different reasons.
Cope, film lenses work as good on digital with maybe an exception on some Leica M ones because they take into consideration the microlenses in the sensor stack
Cope, all rangefinder glass looks like trash on adapted digital systems.
>all
Wrong, see adapted to Leica SL or Nikon Z
>rangefinder glass
Good thing rangefinder glass is not every pre-digital glass out there you dumb nagger
>then it gets difficult when it comes to digital
>and subsequently the advent of digital
I don't really understand what's so wrong about digital, I shoot film and digital but I'm not sure what's inherently wrong about the latter ? Is it because there's bound to be loss compared to analog ?
as I wrote here
, ray angle is the key property that these lenses are optimised around. They have rear elements really close to the film which then spread out the light at an acute angle to cover the 35mm image circle. That results in all the properties I described there. Look up any forum posts for wide angle rangefinder lenses + non-leica Mirrorless and you'll find many examples. The colour shift is correctable with Adobe Flat Field. The smearing needs a PCX filter to correct.
literally the contax g
this is what they took from you, anon... you could be now making kinography, but instead you just do shitsnaps on a phone to feed an algorithm..
😉
cm? Damn.
what
just the double than the sonnar
Just curious, really. Dunno why I was so impressed.
why is tessar bokeh so comfy bros
It's very gentle.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.2Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpi
my bet is
sharp and contrasty af in the center softer at corners, due to less air to glass surfaces
not a symmetric design so image planes are not really plane and overcorrected for corner sharpness
low chromatic aberration
even cooke triplets look comfy af if bw
🙂
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2013:02:25 20:29:04
what the fuck
https://e-hentai.org/g/570766/bd1f4eb4c0/
nice
Bros how do I fuck my lenses
I already checked it out, but thanks.
Did a quick search and this the only related thing i could find.
https://e-hentai.org/g/292881/797c770583/
you got anymore camera gijinka? this was cool, + gave me a good chuckle
>for ur home snapshits 😉
Our frail attempts to match the human eye.
As far as I know, most of the asian lens makers still make Tessar/Sonnar/Double Gauss lens designs for modern mounts.
The human eye has a curved sensor and a variable-refractive-index aspherical lens. Not to mention the world's most sophisticated post-processing.
also forgot to say, digital sux.
>Not to mention the world's most sophisticated post-processing.
So when you think about it, the AI post processing in phones is actually more "real" photography than our cameras.
I don't like this but technically you are correct
Cosina ftw
TIL that a vario-tessar lens has literally nothing to do with a true tessar more than a moneygrubbing interest using a household name
>vario-tessar
Let me guess, you need more?
😉
Dumb question perhaps, but what is the vertical line? The optical center?
aperture blades
my glass has arrived
im gonna build tessar lense, im gonna be god
Four words: computer aided optical design.
Shouldn't it make thing simpler and more streamlined rather than complex and heavier?
no, it should make it perform better
funfact:
the tessar lens elements are still visible in the Zeiss logo
>tfw no optical equipment to make my own tessars
it hurts like fuck
why never a tessar f2 or f1.7? shit would get too swirly? why was 2.8 decided to be its absolute limit?
>decided
yep at some point the laws of physics were just decided and now we have to live with it
I prefer a compact Sonnar
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
Overall optical design is still fairly simple.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.0 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Created2021-07-25T19:37:56-07:00Image Width1030Image Height920
eyeball
>tfw still no curved sensor cameras
>How did we go from this..
Because there is no more photographers left, only photography equipment operators. In other words, what happened was a sea change from man to machines. Need proof? Take a good look at Youtubers on photography gear reviews. They're all machine like.
not my problem.
You can old design and cheap?
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7515086961/ttartisan-35mm-f2-apo-asph-m-mount-lens-50mm-f2-lens-for-aps-c-mirrorless-cameras#comments
You got it. A FF lens for $69
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 23.4 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1720Image Height1452Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Created2022:07:14 14:47:19CommentScreenshotColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1918Image Height1842