New lenses are amazing these days

<p>I have to say that lens designers are really making huge strides these days. Some of the new lenses are significant improvements over those of ten years ago. Has something changed in manufacturing or in computer assisted lens design recently? It looks as if the new generation of lenses will really eclipse what came before in a significant way. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have to say that lens designers are really making huge strides these days. Some of the new lenses are significant improvements over those of ten years ago.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you have any particular examples in mind, any specific manufacturer? Just curious.</p>

<p>The Sigma 50 1.4 looks to be a significant improvement over the "fast fifties." On the micro 4/3 front the Olympus 12-40 2.8 and the 25 1.8 are impressive. The Canon 35 f2 IS is another example of a newer lens that is a large improvement on the old 35 f2. </p>

<p>Stephen, interesting subject. Like Jim, which lenses are you referring to? If it is the overall quality, from budget to prime optics, you may have a debate. However, some low priced zooms, once only moderately performing, are now available to compare with the high quality of pricier optics, and the noticed improvements may be mainly there. It seems to me that other than the super optics (Like the Zeiss and Leica extremely expensive 50 mm lenses) at super high prices ($5000 and more), the top of the line zooms and fixed focal length lenses have made some gradual improvements over time but possibly the greatest improvements have been made on the low priced and moderate priced lenses that most of us can afford.</p>

<p>Often it is true only on a case by case comparison. One of the recent and inexpensive kit zooms on the Sony A7 is apparently of very high quality. But that difference has always been there if you look for it. My former Yashica ML 21 mm lens was inexpensive for a very wide angle optic (I should never have sold it!), but it beat out or equalled those from other manufacturers (including expensive Contax, Nikon and Leica 20 or 21 mm lenses) in the 1980s. </p>

 

<p>I purchased Canon's 100 mm, 2.8 macro lens with image stabilization, and I am extremely happy with it in general. Not so happy, though, with the quality of Tamron's 18-270 zoom. After only about 18 months of use, the barrel has become quite loose.</p>

<p>I think computer-aided design certainly will leave its marks, as will new coatings and more exotic materials that can be used. Of course, science moved on and it shows.<br /> But....</p>

<p>Yes, for sure there are new lenses out there that eclipse what came before. Quite a lot. It would be more amazing if they weren't better, because that would mean we would be at a complete stand-still. To me, though, the real question is: what is better, better in which ways? I have some old(er) lenses, some new (Nikon). The new ones are sharp, contrasty, saturated, look very sharp and do so even at their widest apertures. They deliver what the customer wants: a sharp, punchy look. And that's mostly what we get.<br /> The old ones... well, they look different. Maybe not as defined, not as bitingly sharp. But looking closely, they captured the same amount of detail, they just do not have the saturation nor the contrast. Some of them have clear problems at wide apertures (and very obviously clear). And yet, with all these issues, they can render images with a look that the new lenses simply do not deliver. Cinematic, moody. Much gentler in B&W, with more subtle midtones. And then there are the old great designs - a lens as the 105 f/2.5 Nikon (I can only vouch for the 1971 re-design) is still a touch nut to crack today for those new designs (I'm no expert, but I think quite some older 35mm and 50mm Leicas will fit this list, for example).</p>

<p>So, as Arthur said, it can only be judged case by case, but it also can only be judged only in the context of your needs, preferences and style. I prefer the old lenses, quirky, moody, smaller, lighter. They're not optically perfect with perfect MTF graphs, no vignetting and all those measurable performance metrics. But when I look at the resulting images, I do not care about those metrics. They draw the images I like and want, so they're better. For me anyway ;-)</p>

<p>I've noticed the same. I think it's because of a few factors: More sophisticated design software, greater use of special elements (e.g. aspherical elements), more elaborate designs, and of course the consumer's willingness to pay up in a big way for all of this.</p>

<p>Among the truly extraordinary lenses are Canon's new 24-70/2.8, which is tack sharp when wide open. Amazing! Another amazing lens from several years ago was the Sigma 12-24 and the more recent 8-16 for crop cameras. These are just some of the lenses that have grabbed my attention.</p>

>>> New lenses are amazing these days

 

I agree. I believe it's pretty tough to find a bad lens today.

 

Doubly true considering, in most cases, tiny differences in lens performance for a given speed/focal length usually have little

bearing towards the power a photograph ends up conveying.

<p>I would hope newer lenses are better but you appear to be attempting to put a judgement on thousands of lenses made every year and I wonder if you have been that busy checking them all out. I have new and old NIkkor and Canons and Leitz lens but nothing beats my 19mm f3.5 Vivitar wide angle that I bought in the 1990s.<br>

And nobody beats the lenses on the Rolleiflex I acquired in 1956 as far as richness and depth of lens quality and it's plenty sharp, too.</p>

<p>I think the low-hanging-fruit lenses have always been good, for instance the 50mm lenses -- prime lenses without retrofocal designs, internal focusing, and other complexities. Where lenses have really blossomed of late is where designs have traditionally been rather difficult or demanding -- zooms, UWA, T/S (which requires a very large image circle). There's nothing wrong with the old classic primes. It's just that the more complicated lenses can do so much more (so much better) nowadays.</p>

<p>Sigma just introduced a 50mm F1.4 lens for $895 that's as good as the OTUS 50mm F1.4 for $4,000. Of course both lens are way ahead of Nikon's and Canon's. How does that happen! I just read the latest Pop Photo and the Samsung lenses (Korean) are as good as any in their focal/zoom range. How does that happen! Sigma has a new 18-35 F1.8 cropped frame zoom that's stands alone in its category. I thought Sigma was supposed to be a second tier lens producer. Now it turns out that they've actually surpassed all other lens makes in some categories. Who knew? Yes, lenses are amazing these days.</p>

<p>Yup, lenses are better than ever. In particular, kit zooms are remarkably sharp - flare resistant, well corrected for CA. The main flaw with every midrange kit zoom or mid-priced zoom I've owned or tried is barrel distortion at the wide end. But I suppose that's the compromise made to produce lenses that are as compact as possible for APS and smaller sensor cameras.</p>

<p>Very, very few of my older manual focus lenses are technically better than, or even as good as, my various digicam kit zooms. The only manual focus Nikkor I have that's clearly better than anything else I've used is the 105mm f/2.5 AI. The 85/2 AIS Nikkor is very close, but not quite a match for the 105/2.5 wide open. I've sold or traded some of my better performing manual focus and AF lenses to replace them with newer and fewer contemporary lenses, which usually perform better.</p>

<p>The few older lenses remaining are those I'm keeping for their unique "flaws" and character. I prize a few lowly bargain basement lenses for their heavy chromatic aberration, soft contrast, interesting ghosting flare artifacts and other quirks.</p>

<p>Michael, Sigma's engineers have always been rather innovative and have pulled off some incredibly tricky stuff. We can thank them for developing the first wide angle zoom back in 1979, and they've recently made a couple of significant marks on the bleeding edge of optical technology -- widest angle lens (12-24, 8-16), fastest zoom (f/1.8).</p>

<p>It's the company's manufacturing standards that have traditionally been rather lacking. However, I understand they're turning a corner in quality.</p>

<p>Sarah has hit the nail on the head I think. Cosina also has a full frame 12 mm rectilinear lens and at a price that Leica, Nikon or others do not do. Mine is fine, although perhaps I am not too demanding. The difficullty is in manufacturing and in the past Voigtlander-Cosina has not seemed to always have been able to provide as precise manufacturing as do some of the more expensive lensmakers, resulting occasionally in slightly decentered lenses. This was also true with enlarger lenses as shown by Ctein some 20 years ago, even those from major manufacturers like Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider. I guess it is nice to have great designs and materials, but making critical quality lens assemblies in the plant may vary during manufacturing and it is impossible to check every lens.</p>