… On Lenses: Vintage vs Modern

[IainGFoulds]

Over the years, I have read the occasional posts on forums from vintage lens enthusiasts. Individuals generally shouted down by fans of the “latest and greatest” lenses. The “latest” lenses had the sharpest corners, conquered any trace of vignetting, and rated higher on the DXO measurements. Thus the lenses were definitively and indisputably “better”.

It was this image that convinced me otherwise. The image of the 45 year old 85H has greater natural depth, greater apparent curvature, and an integrity of focal planes. Comparing the two images together, I actually find the modern “corrected” image to be somewhat sickening in it’s obvious distortion. Distortion created by the scene passing through two or three times the number of elements (lenses). The natural scene has not been “corrected”. It has been flattened and distorted by the modern lens in pursuit of artistically irrelevant ideals of technicians.

There is no reason for sharp corners in an image. There is no reason for even sharp edges. Myself, I do edgework on every image- lightly blurring and darkening the artificial border. Why? Because I am creating an illusion. An illusion of a 3D scene to draw in the viewer’s imagination. Absolutely, the earlier lenses with five or six- even four- elements are greater at preserving the sense of depth to the image.

Just wonder how much modern lenses have contributed to the collapse of interest in photography? Of course, the manufacturers blame everyone and everything else… Iain

 

[AlanLichty]

I gave this one some serious thought and in the end I think it really comes down to what you are trying to do with your photography. For the type of photo work I have seen you doing the softness in the older glass sounds highly desirable.

A lot of fields use photography for technical analysis and recording (eg. medicine, geography, law enforcement, and more). I do have an example from my own personal experience. My technical training in photography back in the mid 1970's was specifically aimed towards making record photos within the context of archaeology. Accuracy and sharp focus was paramount since we were making records of something we were about to destroy and our images and notes would be the only remaining record of what we were doing. Softness or distortion at the edges of the image were summarily unacceptable. We were using what you are now calling older glass and would have sacrificed just about anything to get the kind of imagery we can now get out of our gear. I have spent countless hours examining details of slides I could only study using binocular microscopes on the slides where soft focus becomes very apparent in short order. I learned a lot about focus and depth of field while I was active in the field.

Modern excavation work now has access to using computer software to take hundreds of images of a specific site/structure/artifact and use the techniques of photogrammetry to create highly accurate 3D models of the subject. Softness at the edges of each frame creates a level of distortion that simply won't work in this context.

In my own work I do a lot of panoramic stitching to create scenes my lens can't capture in a single shot and again I have a strong need for sharp focus at the edges of the frame for proper alignment of the desired image.

I don't really view photography as a singular technology where one size fits all. Lots of modern art photography depends on being able to exploit older glass in exactly the fashion you are describing and to really push that point we still have people playing around with pinhole cameras and wet plate collodion imagery. Its a pretty big tent

 

[IainGFoulds]

… Appreciate your thoughts Alan! I can see how technical photography, simply the reproduction of information, would benefit from sharp edges. (Though, slight cropping achieves the same result). And, stitching panoramas would be simpler with sharp edges. (perhaps again solved by slight cropping)
… However, the point is to expose what has been sacrificed by generations of “advancements” for these specialized needs of a small segment of photographers. The sacrifice of the natural integrity, beauty, simplicity and artistry of earlier eras of inspiring and iconic photography is, in my mind, a tragedy.

 

[AlanLichty]

Those of us doing photography as a hobby, art, and pleasure are likely a small minority of all who use photographic imagery on a day to day basis.

I think its pretty neat that we have folks like you who are trying to keep the older flames burning.