Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,930   Online: 856
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 80
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,734
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree View Post
    That's true. I've used some pretty good finders, but they are still dependent on the lens speed. I'm happy with my 35 f2.8 Distagon, but not with focusing it indoors. With a Leica, or similar, that isn't a factor.
    I agree that SLRs can provide a struggle with focus in low light, the advantage for the rangefinder here lies in the body/rangefinder mechanism not being affected by the lens brightness, right?
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #12
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236
    Of course, given the outrageously generous depth of field with wide-angles, you really could 'range focus' the old fashioned way and suffer nothing. - David Lyga

  3. #13
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,272
    Images
    148
    Unless you've used a pure wide-angle lens it's hard to appreciate the differences, there's less of the exaggerated pulling effects at the edges of a similar SLR lens, it's less distorted.

    I use the equivalent of a 21mm Leica lens on my 5x4 camera and in most of the images you wouldn't realise how wide angle a lens I'd used. In the early 1990's I used a 21mm on my Leica for a few months and was extremely impressed with the lens.

    Ian

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    683
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Because of the inability to place the rear element closer to the film plane (the mirror gets in the way) RFs are touted as having superior wide-angle results. We know that this is so in theory and that compromises had (and still have?) to be made with optical formulas in order to 'compensate and correct'...
    David, as far as I know there are physical limits in the SLR land and so far big sized lenses with compromises is the only way to go.
    What Ian Grant wrote about Biogon and Distagon in the Hassy is a good way to look at it.

    In RF land, it was not until 1935 when Michail Russinov (or Roosinov) pioneered the use of aberration vignetting (to improve corner illumination) and designed vignetting filter deposited on the inner surface of the wide angle objective exterior lens..
    Also, M.M Russinov pioneered the idea of enlarging the size of the entrance pupil as angular coverage increases..
    By 1946 M.M.Russinov lens design (Russar) was patented and documented widely.
    Zeiss and Leitz came late to the game and that explains why they used workarounds.

    When Ludwig Bertele was commissioned by Zeiss in 1951 to design a wide angle lens for Contax and Hasselblad, Bertele could not obtain master patent for the use of single meniscus at each end of the lens as Russinov had already covered this.

    At the International Congress at Stockholm in 1956 Ludwig Bertele paid tribute to Russinov for his highly interesting and original solution to the problem of securing adequate illumination in the picture corners etc. etc..

    In 2011 Dr. Hubert Nasse, senior scientist at Zeiss and chief optical designer wrote in Camera Lens News 41 published by Zeiss Carl Zeiss AG Camera Lens Division:
    "In 1946 the first patent for a new kind of symmetrical wide-angle lens was applied for by the Russian lens designer Michail Roossinov. It looked as if two retrofocus lenses had been combined with the rear elements together and thus had a symmetrical arrangement of positive refractive powers close to the aperture, surrounded at the front and back by strongly negative menisci.
    As of 1951, Ludwig Bertele carried this idea further and designed the legendary Biogon on behalf of Zeiss..."

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,749
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Very interesting how retro-focus can actually be an advantage.

    Perhaps there will be others with relevant comments on this topic. All I have ever heard is how 'compromised' the SLR wide-angles are but I see nothing but sensational results from such 'inferiority'.

    Mark Crabtree: you are very correct to state that focusing them is a problem with SLRs but some are better than others. - David Lyga
    Retrofocus wide angles can be made just as sharp and well corrected for certain aberrations as RF lenses, but they require significantly more complex designs and usually many more elements (which in the past could have led to reduced contrast but is not currently much of an issue. In theory aspheric elements take the place of several spherical elements in the correction of things like spherical aberration.

    For me, the Achilles' heel of retrofocus wides is geometric distortion. By definition a retrofocus (reverse telephoto) lens is not symmetrical, which introduces geometric distortion, which is complicated and expensive to correct. As a result while many RF wides exhibit minimal and/or virtually invisible amounts of barrel distortion, a partially corrected but still very visible amount of simple barrel or complex (mustache) distortion is usually considered a good performance even in a $2,000+ SLR wide. There are a few exceptions around, but generally it seems to me most new SLR prime wide designs are pretty lackluster when it comes to geometric distortion correction. My guess is that is because most people are shooting digital and simple geometric distortion can be largely corrected post-capture. Unfortunately while there are some very sharp SLR wides, in my experience the correlation between price and distortion correction is relatively weak.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    65
    No complaints about the 2.8/24 and 2.8/28 Ai-S's; great '80's lenses. But then, maybe they're not real wide angles...

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Unless you've used a pure wide-angle lens it's hard to appreciate the differences, there's less of the exaggerated pulling effects at the edges of a similar SLR lens, it's less distorted.

    I use the equivalent of a 21mm Leica lens on my 5x4 camera and in most of the images you wouldn't realise how wide angle a lens I'd used. In the early 1990's I used a 21mm on my Leica for a few months and was extremely impressed with the lens.

    Ian
    I've been wanting a 21 Super Angulon for some time. Normally I don't shoot that wide, but I really enjoy that lens. Maybe it has something to do with the characteristics you mention. With lenses, I sure like some more than others, but often can't attribute it to a particular characteristic.

    The Nikkor 24 f2.8 was a very good lens for the time, and one I still like. I imagine shooting it side by side with a Super Angulon would show up some significant differences.

    And, of course, that doesn't mean your pictures would be better with a better lens, but that wasn't the question here.

  8. #18
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    I am not a lens design expert but would agree with the theory that wherever there is some additional constraints in lens design, either price or lens quality has to suffer, or both.

    I have a small and quite well made Voigtländer 15mm on my Voigtländer Bessa-L and the pair is light, portable, and fairly inexpensive.
    A 15mm on a SLR would undoubtedly be more expensive, heavier, and very likely sacrifice some image quality on the altar of design complexity. I very often take pictures of architectural subjects so distortion correction is something I deeply like.

    I would say that, overall, wide-angle photography is something that would better be left at range-finders. If you are the kind of persons that goes around with two or three bodies, the wide-angle body should be a range-finder (or quasi range-finder, like a Contax G2). It's not just a matter of distortion correction but also a matter of weight and size.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  9. #19
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,298
    Images
    46
    Enjoyed the lens design story, thanks georg16nik.

    As several have noted... In terms of ease of focus and composition... rangefinders are well suited to wide angle, while SLR's are better suited to telephoto.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    656
    Michael,

    In the late 70s a "teacher" at the traveling Nikon School said wide angles don't have distortion but exaggerated perspective. He followed with a sensible proof using the ratio of distance to foreground objects and distance to background objects. Whether or not this was provided to explain away true distortion in WA Nikkors versus WAs by Leitz I don't know but 1) It made perfect sense, and 2) I've never had much problem with "distortion" if I framed the image correctly. Usually, I was after the FG/BG thing so I coaxed it as much as I could. And, with the Nikkor Retros I could actually afford the 28s, 24s and 20s that let me get the images I was after. If Leitz was the only source of wide angles I doubt I would have ever picked up a camera. I have no doubt the geometries and optics can affect things here but must also think at least some of the spiel behind $3k 35s is to explain away Leica's antiquated production workflow.
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin