Lenses from 195x and 196x?
 

Does some of these lenses really have a nicer "look" than most current
designs?
I know some of them are very good performers as I from time to time take
pictures with some old Voigtländer lenses.....but I have never made a direct
match with my Nikkors.
Some people also like the sound from a tube amplifier better than the sound
from a modern transistor amplifier. Could it be so....that the old lens
designs can be compared with the sound from a high end tube amplifier?

Max

MXP wrote:
Does some of these lenses really have a nicer "look" than most current
designs?
I know some of them are very good performers as I from time to time take
pictures with some old Voigtländer lenses.....but I have never made a
direct
match with my Nikkors.
Some people also like the sound from a tube amplifier better than the
sound
from a modern transistor amplifier. Could it be so....that the old lens
designs can be compared with the sound from a high end tube amplifier?

Max

That sort of depends on what you are looking for.

In my experience the change started in the 60's. Earlier lenses tended
to be a little softer and in particular they tended to be less sharp around
the edges.

That is not to say they were not sharp. Nor that they were not as good
as today's lenses. However for some work, I prefer a less harsh (sharp)
lens. This is not just a matter of focusing the light, but also lower
contrast due to more internal reflections and less effective coatings.



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

MXP wrote:
Does some of these lenses really have a nicer "look" than most current
designs?
I know some of them are very good performers as I from time to time take
pictures with some old Voigtländer lenses.....but I have never made a
direct
match with my Nikkors.
Some people also like the sound from a tube amplifier better than the
sound
from a modern transistor amplifier. Could it be so....that the old lens
designs can be compared with the sound from a high end tube amplifier?

Max

That sort of depends on what you are looking for.

In my experience the change started in the 60's. Earlier lenses tended
to be a little softer and in particular they tended to be less sharp around
the edges.

That is not to say they were not sharp. Nor that they were not as good
as today's lenses. However for some work, I prefer a less harsh (sharp)
lens. This is not just a matter of focusing the light, but also lower
contrast due to more internal reflections and less effective coatings.



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

MXP wrote:
Does some of these lenses really have a nicer "look" than most current
designs?
I know some of them are very good performers as I from time to time take
pictures with some old Voigtländer lenses.....but I have never made a
direct
match with my Nikkors.
Some people also like the sound from a tube amplifier better than the
sound
from a modern transistor amplifier. Could it be so....that the old lens
designs can be compared with the sound from a high end tube amplifier?

Max

That sort of depends on what you are looking for.

In my experience the change started in the 60's. Earlier lenses tended
to be a little softer and in particular they tended to be less sharp around
the edges.

That is not to say they were not sharp. Nor that they were not as good
as today's lenses. However for some work, I prefer a less harsh (sharp)
lens. This is not just a matter of focusing the light, but also lower
contrast due to more internal reflections and less effective coatings.



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Joseph Meehan" skrev i en meddelelse
...
MXP wrote:
Does some of these lenses really have a nicer "look" than most current
designs?
I know some of them are very good performers as I from time to time take
pictures with some old Voigtländer lenses.....but I have never made a
direct
match with my Nikkors.
Some people also like the sound from a tube amplifier better than the
sound
from a modern transistor amplifier. Could it be so....that the old lens
designs can be compared with the sound from a high end tube amplifier?

Max

That sort of depends on what you are looking for.

In my experience the change started in the 60's. Earlier lenses tended
to be a little softer and in particular they tended to be less sharp
around the edges.

That is not to say they were not sharp. Nor that they were not as good
as today's lenses. However for some work, I prefer a less harsh (sharp)
lens. This is not just a matter of focusing the light, but also lower
contrast due to more internal reflections and less effective coatings.



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math




They didn't use some of the rare and expensive glas sorts to be able to use
less elements?
They didn't have the computer power we have today so maybe they could
compensate by using more expensive glass which are not used today?

Max

"Joseph Meehan" skrev i en meddelelse
...
MXP wrote:
Does some of these lenses really have a nicer "look" than most current
designs?
I know some of them are very good performers as I from time to time take
pictures with some old Voigtländer lenses.....but I have never made a
direct
match with my Nikkors.
Some people also like the sound from a tube amplifier better than the
sound
from a modern transistor amplifier. Could it be so....that the old lens
designs can be compared with the sound from a high end tube amplifier?

Max

That sort of depends on what you are looking for.

In my experience the change started in the 60's. Earlier lenses tended
to be a little softer and in particular they tended to be less sharp
around the edges.

That is not to say they were not sharp. Nor that they were not as good
as today's lenses. However for some work, I prefer a less harsh (sharp)
lens. This is not just a matter of focusing the light, but also lower
contrast due to more internal reflections and less effective coatings.



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math




They didn't use some of the rare and expensive glas sorts to be able to use
less elements?
They didn't have the computer power we have today so maybe they could
compensate by using more expensive glass which are not used today?

Max

"Joseph Meehan" skrev i en meddelelse
...
MXP wrote:
Does some of these lenses really have a nicer "look" than most current
designs?
I know some of them are very good performers as I from time to time take
pictures with some old Voigtländer lenses.....but I have never made a
direct
match with my Nikkors.
Some people also like the sound from a tube amplifier better than the
sound
from a modern transistor amplifier. Could it be so....that the old lens
designs can be compared with the sound from a high end tube amplifier?

Max

That sort of depends on what you are looking for.

In my experience the change started in the 60's. Earlier lenses tended
to be a little softer and in particular they tended to be less sharp
around the edges.

That is not to say they were not sharp. Nor that they were not as good
as today's lenses. However for some work, I prefer a less harsh (sharp)
lens. This is not just a matter of focusing the light, but also lower
contrast due to more internal reflections and less effective coatings.



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math




They didn't use some of the rare and expensive glas sorts to be able to use
less elements?
They didn't have the computer power we have today so maybe they could
compensate by using more expensive glass which are not used today?

Max

MXP wrote:


They didn't use some of the rare and expensive glas sorts to be able to use
less elements?
They didn't have the computer power we have today so maybe they could
compensate by using more expensive glass which are not used today?


They designed differently. Some of the complicated designs with many
elements would have been busts without all sorts of coatings. OTOH if you
don't have those coatings you use different designs.

Nick

MXP wrote:


They didn't use some of the rare and expensive glas sorts to be able to use
less elements?
They didn't have the computer power we have today so maybe they could
compensate by using more expensive glass which are not used today?


They designed differently. Some of the complicated designs with many
elements would have been busts without all sorts of coatings. OTOH if you
don't have those coatings you use different designs.

Nick

MXP wrote:


They didn't use some of the rare and expensive glas sorts to be able to use
less elements?
They didn't have the computer power we have today so maybe they could
compensate by using more expensive glass which are not used today?


They designed differently. Some of the complicated designs with many
elements would have been busts without all sorts of coatings. OTOH if you
don't have those coatings you use different designs.

Nick