4 ms·

The sharpness surprised me. What a beautiful combination of new and old.

justincormack 15y ago
Old lenses are often sharper in the centre of the field than modern ones, but much less sharp nearer the edges. Trade offs in design, overall sharpness is what people want now.
- dfischer 15y ago
  What's the limitation that causes this?
  - dllu 15y ago
    Lenses can be less sharp around the edges for a number of reasons: - Chromatic aberrations. Most old lenses are not achromat or apochromat, so different wavelengths of light get refracted with different indices of refraction. In black-and-white photography, the colour fringes near the edges simply show up as being slightly blurry, so it's not as big of a deal as in modern colour photography. - The plane of focus might not in fact planar, but may be curved due to the lens having a simple optical design with few elements. So when one focuses on the centre of the frame, the edges of the scene do not coincide with the plane of focus. As for the claim that old lenses are sharper than modern lenses in the centre... perhaps it is true when comparing that lens to compact camera lenses and the such. But from my casual perusal of DSLR lens benchmarks, modern prime lenses are very, very sharp in the center and should certainly beat this lens - especially when stopped down. Modern DSLR prime lenses are often faster than f/2 wide open, whereas that old lens is f/6.8, yielding a deeper depth of field. But stopping the modern lens down to f/6.8 should result in superior resolution. Anyway, small cameras and cell phones can be less sharp due to diffraction effects on such a small scale.
    - cytzol 15y ago
      Thank you for posting this. I still think of lenses as just a tuple of (focal length, f-number), and can't understand why two lenses of the same "spec" can be different. Probably a bad mode of thinking to be in.
      - justincormack 15y ago
        Look up lens design and you will find it is very complex. Actually getting a flat field is pretty complex.
wisty 15y ago
People often underestimate the sharpness of narrow apature lenses. Unless you need a fast exposure, a narrower apature can be be sharper. On an APC-C, at 135mm, difference between the maximum center resolution of a cheapish superzoom lens (Tamron 18-250mm), and a luxury prime lens (a Canon 135mm f/2) is ~10%. And neither perform best wide open (especially at the borders). The difference at the border is ~20%. The prime lens has other advantages (much better max apature, less distortion, less CA), but the sharpness of "bad" lenses is often underestimated.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  I hope you're getting a ton of up votes for this. As geeks, we have a bad tendency to focus on the gear. As if good, sharp photos can't be taken without a $2,000 lens. My interest in photography tends to be periodic, with phases of intense interest, followed by droughts of inactivity. The last time I got back in to photography, I had already sold my old Canon A1 35mm camera, so I only had a Canon SD870IS point-and-shoot camera. I started out by digging around on the internet searching for the "best value" in camera gear. I don't remember what triggered it, but I remember stopping to think, "If I want to take photos, what's stopping me from just taking this SD870 out and shooting?" After reflection, I decided that it didn't matter what other people thought of my gear. When/if I decided to post anything online, I'd just omit my gear information anyway. So I went out, and I shot. As it turns out, I was really pleased with the results. I kept the 870 with me nearly all the time, so if I found myself driving back from out of town and saw some cool ship yard, I'd just stop and shoot it. I ended up getting some shots that I was really happy with.
  - wisty 15y ago
    I find a lot of geeks are actually not crazy gear-heads. You don't see many geeks falling for $1000 gold plated audio cables or CPUs with massive GHz ratings either. I'm a mediocre photographer, but I know how to get the best technical results out of my gear, and can tell what kind of gear and configuration is needed for a good shot. It's often geeks (and genuinely good photographers) who shout the loudest that any camera with a decent sized sensor is fine. Yes, we love spec porn, but at least we know when it's a con.

Old lenses are often sharper in the centre of the field than modern ones, but much less sharp nearer the edges. Trade offs in design, overall sharpness is what people want now.

dfischer 15y ago
What's the limitation that causes this?
- dllu 15y ago
  Lenses can be less sharp around the edges for a number of reasons: - Chromatic aberrations. Most old lenses are not achromat or apochromat, so different wavelengths of light get refracted with different indices of refraction. In black-and-white photography, the colour fringes near the edges simply show up as being slightly blurry, so it's not as big of a deal as in modern colour photography. - The plane of focus might not in fact planar, but may be curved due to the lens having a simple optical design with few elements. So when one focuses on the centre of the frame, the edges of the scene do not coincide with the plane of focus. As for the claim that old lenses are sharper than modern lenses in the centre... perhaps it is true when comparing that lens to compact camera lenses and the such. But from my casual perusal of DSLR lens benchmarks, modern prime lenses are very, very sharp in the center and should certainly beat this lens - especially when stopped down. Modern DSLR prime lenses are often faster than f/2 wide open, whereas that old lens is f/6.8, yielding a deeper depth of field. But stopping the modern lens down to f/6.8 should result in superior resolution. Anyway, small cameras and cell phones can be less sharp due to diffraction effects on such a small scale.
  - cytzol 15y ago
    Thank you for posting this. I still think of lenses as just a tuple of (focal length, f-number), and can't understand why two lenses of the same "spec" can be different. Probably a bad mode of thinking to be in.
    - justincormack 15y ago
      Look up lens design and you will find it is very complex. Actually getting a flat field is pretty complex.

wisty 15y ago

People often underestimate the sharpness of narrow apature lenses. Unless you need a fast exposure, a narrower apature can be be sharper. On an APC-C, at 135mm, difference between the maximum center resolution of a cheapish superzoom lens (Tamron 18-250mm), and a luxury prime lens (a Canon 135mm f/2) is ~10%. And neither perform best wide open (especially at the borders). The difference at the border is ~20%. The prime lens has other advantages (much better max apature, less distortion, less CA), but the sharpness of "bad" lenses is often underestimated.

bradleyland 15y ago
I hope you're getting a ton of up votes for this. As geeks, we have a bad tendency to focus on the gear. As if good, sharp photos can't be taken without a $2,000 lens. My interest in photography tends to be periodic, with phases of intense interest, followed by droughts of inactivity. The last time I got back in to photography, I had already sold my old Canon A1 35mm camera, so I only had a Canon SD870IS point-and-shoot camera. I started out by digging around on the internet searching for the "best value" in camera gear. I don't remember what triggered it, but I remember stopping to think, "If I want to take photos, what's stopping me from just taking this SD870 out and shooting?" After reflection, I decided that it didn't matter what other people thought of my gear. When/if I decided to post anything online, I'd just omit my gear information anyway. So I went out, and I shot. As it turns out, I was really pleased with the results. I kept the 870 with me nearly all the time, so if I found myself driving back from out of town and saw some cool ship yard, I'd just stop and shoot it. I ended up getting some shots that I was really happy with.
- wisty 15y ago
  I find a lot of geeks are actually not crazy gear-heads. You don't see many geeks falling for $1000 gold plated audio cables or CPUs with massive GHz ratings either. I'm a mediocre photographer, but I know how to get the best technical results out of my gear, and can tell what kind of gear and configuration is needed for a good shot. It's often geeks (and genuinely good photographers) who shout the loudest that any camera with a decent sized sensor is fine. Yes, we love spec porn, but at least we know when it's a con.