P3D Re: lenses then and now

[Rob <lilindn@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

p
> etc.
> There is simply no comparison in my estimation between a modern lens
> and an older (50's type or earlier) lens.  Simply put, if they were THAT good, they would still be manufacturing them. 
..
    By no means is that necessarily so - marketplace demand today does
not call for a lens of one fixed focal length that can take a beautiful
slide outdoors and open up to f 1.2 to take B&W pictures indoors with
neither flash nor tripod.  Lenses today are designed to have great zoom
ratios, take passable color prints, and fit (with the camera) in the
pocket of a size 2 dress without showing. 
    Do not take this to mean that newer lenses are not good.  The use of
new types of glass, new lens designs, and new manufacturing techniques
(foremost of these is mass-production on aspherics) is producing many
lenses of very good quality, even zooms.
    A few things should be understood about older lenses:
1) Many older lenses produced excellent sharpness at the center, but not
as great at the edges and especially the corners.  New lenses tend to
perform almost equally well throught the image.
2) Older lenses could be designed for sharpness, speed or simplicity of
design - but usually only two of these qualities could be obtained in
one lens design.  Faster lenses were less sharp, unless they were very
well designed and made (Summicron 50/2 and Takumar 55/1.4 come to mind)
3) Older lenses are more likely to perform poorly when "wide open",
producing sharpest pictures at medium apetures NOTE: THE DAVID WHITE 3.5
IS DEFINITELY A CASE IN POINT.
4) In many cases, an inexpensive lens of simple design could produce
good images, especially if it is a "slow" lens design and you use it
even slower.  Here, Quality control can influence performance more than
the lens design.  You may find one Argus C3 that takes mediocre
pictures, whereas another, identical by appearance, set to f8 or 11,
takes images of truly stunning sharpness.
    Rob


------------------------------