The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses

I occasionally visit Photography Life site and I mostly find it interesting and informative. But I don't like his judging articles and judging statements in comments section below articles.
Let me ask all of you; who is Nasim Mansurov to judge?
A lot of photographers still shoot with old manual primes and they say they're better then those sterile modern lenses.
I don't know if that's true because I don't own old primes to compare, but I won't make fun of them.

Lenses render differently in various ways, unless someone wants to make an argument that all lenses since the beginning produce the exact same results. How one will receive these differences, assuming they’re even noticeable or relevant outside of a direct A/B comparison, will of course depend on the individual.

And as noted above, how these characteristic notably manifest will often depend on the type of photo taken. I have a 1934 lens that, due to flare (a technical fault), actually creates, for me, a desirable ‘glow’ around certain elements. However, this effect is not always present, as one might guess.

So while the article’s facetious statement has its points, it is equally foolish for one to buy the most modern and expensive lenses, employing the latest technologies, while simultaneously dismissing the fact that older lens (largely as a consequence of technological evolution) perform differently. And the benefits (if any) of these differences are subject to subjective interpretation.

As I’ve stated before, my favorite period in photography roughly stems from the 1930s to the 1960s, and not because of the lenses used. But this said, those lenses used were, nevertheless, more than sufficient for the applications that mattered to me.

I think he makes a valid point TBH, though it isn't really a black and white trade-off. On one extreme, I agree that Sigma lenses though very sharp, have a very clinical and at times harsh rendering. Sony's GM lenses are a it on the opposite spectrum for a modern lens....really pleasing rendering for portraits, but can look really flat at times though they are very sharp. But there are lenses that strike a good balance between microcontrast and pop while having pleasing rendering. Zeiss glass comes to mind.

Leica lenses are still designed by humans and it's that experience of how to design a lens that renders a certain way exists because of a long legacy of designs and not by a computerized formula.

A lot of Leica lenses are not only about sharpness but just as much about the way they render.

Me likes Fuji lenses. Canon side, 85L, 135L and 200mm f2 L have the pop.

Guess I have to purchase some adapters for my older lenses and check this phenomena out.

I guess I'm one of the sheep who likes the way photographs I take with both my 100-400L ii and 70-200 f/2.8 ll look.

I don't print much but on my monitor, I can get my photos to have that pop with a little PP. I don't overdo it... I hate that look... but add a little contrast, some sharpening in some cases, I can get them to satisfy my old eyes.

I've never used any of the great Canon primes including the super telephoto lenses. I might have a completely different opinion if I ever have the chance.

Ah-keong wrote in post #18495179
https://photographylif​e.com …d-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

I find the article interesting with some good points to think about. Although I'll start first thing with the cat photo and say the author sounds off-track. The cat looks that way due to the depth of field and the angle it's turned. I've seen similar from modern lenses.

What he expresses reminds me of something a reviewer Dustin Abbott stated about Tamron's new 85mm. Abbott said the Tamron had a "soul" and reminded of his vintage lenses. Even equating the new Tamron with Zeiss in some regards. In fact, that's one reason I chose the new Tamron over the Sigma Art or Zeiss a couple months ago when I ordered the 2nd 85mm to compliment my Canon 85mm 1.2

I once had an 1960's Canon 55mm FL that I wish was still around, adapted to my Canon DSLR. It wasn't sharp, but rendered flowers in a way my new lenses don't. It's not that it was better, just that it was different. Otherwise, I find that many new lenses make the outdoors more life-like for me, particularly forests where I shoot.

So I think the author started a good topic to let simmer a while.

mdvaden wrote in post #18499538
I find the article interesting with some good points to think about. Although I'll start first thing with the cat photo and say the author sounds off-track. The cat looks that way due to the depth of field and the angle it's turned. I've seen similar from modern lenses.

What he expresses reminds me of something a reviewer Dustin Abbott stated about Tamron's new 85mm. Abbott said the Tamron had a "soul" and reminded of his vintage lenses. Even equating the new Tamron with Zeiss in some regards. In fact, that's one reason I chose the new Tamron over the Sigma Art or Zeiss a couple months ago when I ordered the 2nd 85mm to compliment my Canon 85mm 1.2

I once had an 1960's Canon 55mm FL that I wish was still around, adapted to my Canon DSLR. It wasn't sharp, but rendered flowers in a way my new lenses don't. It's not that it was better, just that it was different. Otherwise, I find that many new lenses make the outdoors more life-like for me, particularly forests where I shoot.

So I think the author started a good topic to let simmer a while.

I thought about something similar to that when I was 50mm shopping. Something like a Zeiss Planar is technically a bad lens, with no floating element, focus shift, soft wide open, etc...whereas the Distagons aren't. Then again, a lot of that stuff can be done in post - whereas if the data wasn't captured to begin with, there's only so much you can do with it after the fact.

How a lens "renders" is something that's ultimately subjective instead of objective. Personally, I find more "3D pop" with my recent L lenses compared to older non L/ FD lenses. IMO, the main strength of old MF lenses like FD lenses is that they're optically OK, but are spectacular at manual focusing (long focus pulls, and real DOF scales). Part of a modern lens's rendition is more sharpness and part of it is a definite color balance. There is an art to lens making, and all the big brands still have people manually polishing lens elements to certain specifications in their pro series. The author makes the same false argument that I've heard from others: the fewer the lens elements, the better sharpness should be (even if it's supposed to be hyperbole in this case). Lens makers are including more elements to offer IS, eliminate aberrations, and to better focus the light. When it comes to sharpness and color rendition, the author's example photos don't show a distinct advantage for modern vs classic lens. One "objectively" better comparison is with a zoom lens vs old prime: and he likes the prime because it has more vignetting. Personally, I'd rather not be a property of my lens but something I chose to add in post.

Edit: Here's the first field test I had with the 24-70mm 2.8L II. The color rendition, sharpness, and contrast is what sold me with it over a similar Tamron (which I find has good sharpness, but not the same contrast). The foreground is pretty much SOOC, I de-saturated and vignetted the background:

IMAGE LINK: https://davesrose.smug​mug.com/DragonCon-2014/i-BjZSswn/A

And Zeiss, my friend.

davesrose wrote in post #18501469
How a lens "renders" is something that's ultimately subjective instead of objective.

Coffee is subjective too. Like, I'd say McDonald's coffee, known to be good, is "sharp" ... whereas Starbuck's, or the like, "renders" ...

mcluckie wrote in post #18529337
And Zeiss, my friend.

My 2nd to last new lens was a Tamron 85mm, and I love it. Most recent, was a Zeiss Milvus 85mm. Just used it in the redwoods for the very first time there. Lovely.

mdvaden wrote in post #18530389
Coffee is subjective too. Like, I'd say McDonald's coffee, known to be good, is "sharp" ... whereas Starbuck's, or the like, "renders" ...

My 2nd to last new lens was a Tamron 85mm, and I love it. Most recent, was a Zeiss Milvus 85mm. Just used it in the redwoods for the very first time there. Lovely.

Hosted photo: posted by mdvaden in
./showthread.php?p=185​30389&i=i225676031
forum: General Photography Talk

I had the Tamron 85 last year. It made me remember how much I like 85s. It went away for the Milvus 85 and it was indeed sweet (rendering like my 50 Milvus), but at that FL, I kinda like AF, so it went away while I waited for the Canon 1.4, which I’ll probably pick up soon. Being a travel/street guy these days, I also liked my smaller 100 makro planar better, even being full of CA (back on topic).

I find that generally lenses with no CA have less personality. Makro Planars are horrible in that spec but render beautifully. Fix one quality and others get worse. I choose rendering more than tech perfection. Designing for both ends up with 14 elements and a big, heavy barrel to accommodate.

Just picked up a Leica 90 summicron APO and it is one sweet piece of glass and the way it renders is really nice.