The problem with modern optics

[fractal]

As somebody who owns a number of old "legacy" lenses I've adapted to my Sony NEX-7, I found the following article very interesting and informative. It helps explain (at least to me) why the shots I take with an old Minolta 50mm 1.4 seem to have more "character" and superior rendering than a modern 50mm lens.

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics

 

[SkaGoat]

I don't buy it... this is just like saying a '69 Corvette is better than a 2016 Corvette because the new one lacks "Character".

There are plenty of amazing photographs taken with modern lenses, just as there are plenty of terrible, unimpressive photos taken with "vintage" lenses.

I want my pictures to be as sharp, and even as possible from corner to corner, if I want to add a vignette, or grain, or blurry corner, I'll do it in post.

It's like people who make digital video for a living using a very flat picture style while recording, and grading it themselves in post.

If the lens makes dark and blurry corners, it's harder to recover in post, you can also not make a less sharp lens sharper.

 

[boBQuincy]

It is an interesting look at why some lenses have a certain "look" and may be similar to the debates on audio sources (CDs, vinyl, tape...). We know that there are factors we can see/hear that we can't measure, or we at least don't know what to measure and how it affects the output. Certainly photographers like Ansel Adams and Yousuf Karsh produced some stunning work with lenses we would rate far below a kit lens today, mostly four uncoated elements.

According to the graphs my micro 4:3 25 mm f/1.4 and to a lesser extent my 45 mm f/1.8 are decent portrait lenses and indeed they seem to be.
Please post more links to articles like this when you find them!

As for the Corvettes, drive one of each and becomes clear what we have gained but also what we have lost.

 

[dmaxphil]

I've done a bunch of sample shots lately comparing lenses and I've seen some differences in 3d "look" or flatness. But this post is an attempt to just compare 4 images taken of the same scene with 3 lenses, 105mm f2.5 AIS, 85mm 1.4D and 70-200 VRII f2.8 @ 105mm. I'm constantly impressed with how well the old 105mm holds up against modern lenses.

105mm f2.5 AIS @ f2.8

AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II @ 105mm f2.8

85mm 1.4D @ f1.4

85mm 1.4D @ f2.8

 

[fractal]

I'm always impressed with the rendering from NIKON AIS lenses, including your 105mm.

 

[bob100]

I don't buy it... this is just like saying a '69 Corvette is better than a 2016 Corvette because the new one lacks "Character".

There are plenty of amazing photographs taken with modern lenses, just as there are plenty of terrible, unimpressive photos taken with "vintage" lenses.
I want my pictures to be as sharp, and even as possible from corner to corner, if I want to add a vignette, or grain, or blurry corner, I'll do it in post.
It's like people who make digital video for a living using a very flat picture style while recording, and grading it themselves in post.

If the lens makes dark and blurry corners, it's harder to recover in post, you can also not make a less sharp lens sharper.

right, in fact the author of the article doesn't understand distance perceptive and confuses this with the "character" of the lens. Under the 35mm portraits he notes the flat noses and heads and then with 85mm lens the heads and noses turn into beautiful "3d rendering" ! He never realizes the differences are due to the extra distance from the subject and probably not that wonderful "depth" and "3d rendering" of the older lens !

that said, some older film lens are still good and have gained new lives with the modern mirrorless cameras
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless