If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|