Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,667   Online: 852
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred De Van View Post
    In order to do that I would have to write the book which Arthur Cox has already written.
    Nah...! You only need to point out the bits you think were wrong, and say what about them in particular is wrong and how it would be right.
    Not much more work than writing the wrong bits has been.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    It would be easier (though a lot of work) to discuss the various lens design families.

    Triplets, for instance, are early examples of a design idea that evolved into more complicated lens types. But not all lenses have triplets in their ancestry. Double-Gauss lenses, for instance, are a different, separate lineage. You would run into severe difficulties trying to explain a Planar as an 'evolved' Tessar.
    Do it like this, and an Biogon would not seem to be an 'outlier'. It does indeed fit a scheme.

    But i fear Fred is right: there's enough to say to fill entire books with.

    One more remark though, so there is no misunderstanding: the number of elements are an indicator for from what idea a lens design family started, and how it evolved.
    Progress is not just a matter of adding more elements. Better, newer lenses have been made by reducing the number of elements as well.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,976
    This page on the Carl Zeiss site explains the names:

    http://tinyurl.com/379mu5

    It's the third link in the middle section of the page ("Lens names").

    Some of the lenses are extremely complex and have a large number of elements, while others are simpler designs.

    I notice they don't list the Triotar (a triplet). I guess they've stopped production of that lens. I'm trying to think of the last camera to carry that lens, and I'm thinking that it might be the Rollei C35/35 LED.

    This is a very interesting thread, by the way.

  4. #24
    jmcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    715
    Images
    41
    All of these lenses are excellent, and each produces a different look.

    The more wide open, the more distinctive the look. The more stopped down, the more they look alike. In my gallery I have examples of the different looks of the Sonnar, Tessar, and Summicron.

  5. #25
    Ken N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Creston and Newton, Iowa.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    389
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Anscojohn View Post
    & Sonnar=telephoto.

    Gosh, you mean the 5 cm F 2.0 Sonnar on my Contax is a telephoto!!??
    A "telephoto" lens is a telephoto by design, not by focal length. In essence it moves the nodal points.
    http://www.zone-10.com

    When you turn your camera on, does it return the favor?

  6. #26
    aparat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    428
    Images
    39
    This is really funny! No wonder the OP is confused... so am I.

  7. #27
    jmcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    715
    Images
    41
    "Where can I learn about the difference in all of these lens classifications? I have no idea what these classifications mean."

    The main thing they mean to me is how they produce distinctive images.

    As for the physical make-up, I think it was Lynn Jones who years ago had a running series in View Camera magazine about the history of lens design, which might be informative.

  8. #28
    sidearm613's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    269
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    14
    So, on the topic, what exactly does it mean when you say a lens is a Petzval? I heard that it was some sort of early apochromatic triplet, but I don't really know jack... Help out a younger member of the photo community!
    David

    A Holga is an ugly woman, a Brownie is a delicious treat.

    dromanophoto.blogspot.com/

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,278
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by sidearm613 View Post
    So, on the topic, what exactly does it mean when you say a lens is a Petzval?
    Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petzval_lens, it's a kind of double-doublet.

    A descendant, the "Nagler-Petzval"---I don't know exactly what the differences are---is well known in the high-end refracting telescope world; http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1749 has a few words on the history of the design (along with a detailed review of an extremely sexy scope).

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  10. #30
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    I
    Also, it seems like the tendency to use the name as an indicator of the design went out of vogue sometime in the latter half of the last century, leading to things like the Olympus convention where a prefixed letter tells you how many elements there are ("D.Zuiko"==4 elements, "E.Zuiko"==5 elements, &c.).
    -NT
    Pre-AI Nikkors also used letters to indicate the number of elements; Nikkor-H, Nikkor-P and so on.

    I think no current manufacturer is doing that, it probably isn't considered immediately important information any more.

    There is a *tendency* with Zeiss and Leitz to give their different aperture lenses different signatures. What I've noticed is that fast Zeiss and Leica lenses 35/1.4, 35/2.0, 85/1.4 & 90/2.0) tend to be more pictorial with a nice 3-d effect, bokeh and all that. Slower lenses (35/2.8, 85/2.8 & 90/2.8) tend to be more technical/analytical: High contrast, flat field, even lower distortion.

    From what I've read, the differences between the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8 and 21/4.5 should be similar.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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