Link?

>>2766035
i wouldn't be surprised if the only consistent difference between all low-element and high-element lenses is variation in manufacturing

does it really matter if you aren't cropping your photos like a 6x digital teleconverter

>>2766042

Well, even if you are not it is still interesting to know if a $2000 prime really is worth the extra cash over a $300 one.

Of course you might get the wider aperture on the more expensive prime lens but if what he says is correct then the cheaper/slower lenses should be better optically? I will ALWAYS choose the better IQ over a slightly wider aperture.

>>2766049
have you thought about how many more photo opportunities are "opened up" with a wider aperture that lets in more light? maybe you don't actually need the aperture that much wider, though it's something to think about.

at some point clinical sharpness just loses visible importance, but that point is an opinion.

the $300 lens probably has looser quality assurance than the $2000 so if you spot a flaw you can return it for another copy and if there's still a flaw oh well you just wasted some time trying to save $1700, which isn't the worst thing to waste your time on.

>>2766035
>So what the fuck, seems he knows what he is talking about? Is glass really the devil? Are lower element lenses really better than higher element more expensive lenses??

he's correct. it's not like he's the only one to say this, there's a multitude of articles where you can find the same conclusion. the more elements you put between the image and the sensor the more you will impact rendition, which is why i no longer utilize a UV filter on any of my lenses. tony northrup had a video demonstrating the impact of UV filters.

>>2766049
>Of course you might get the wider aperture on the more expensive prime lens but if what he says is correct then the cheaper/slower lenses should be better optically? I will ALWAYS choose the better IQ over a slightly wider aperture.

there's a lot of considerations like the design of the lens itself but that's a perfectly valid conclusion IN GENERAL. i think it's too specific to decide between a 50 1.8 vs a 50 1.4 just based on element count.

also i don't know about you crazy kids but if light or bokeh isn't an issue i'm usually stopping down to f/8 or wherever my lens's sweet spot is

and >>2766055
is correct on all of his points too

>>2766061
Yeah, same goes for telescopes. The more glass you have in an eyepiece the darker the image will be. It's simple physics really.

I've heard it described as making images look less 3d/real in the rendering of the forms (when you add more lens elements). I've also heard some people claim that this is why modern 10+ element lenses make images that look cold and lifeless while the traditional 4 or 5 element lenses from the past had more punch.

>>2766035
> Are lower element lenses really better than higher element more expensive lenses??
No. They are not. We got plenty of tests to show this.

If we had super nice shape changing optical lenses that could take on the job of entire lens groups, that'd be nicer to use than those lens groups, I guess. But we don't.

So all we have is the "sharpness doesn't matter" front that thinks they're clever, but ultimately they're proponents of something that directly causes irrecoverable information loss.
Sharpness is just generally more important for photography because unlike with transmission, you can't do shit to recover the information affected by flaws, and information loss is basically guaranteed.

Can someone link the damn source video.

>>2766035
>Does this guy know what he is talking about or not?
As a self proclaimed genius of course he does.

I ignore his videos on "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" and take his claims of being a master archer, chess champion, translator of Ancient Greek. Russian, Sanskrit, etc. with a large grain of salt.

It seems he used to troll the alternative energy forums with some snake oil merchants. Also Buddhist forums. He is always right and if you doubt him you are an idiot.

On lens design he is generally right. In a nutshell sometimes contrast is more desireable than resolution. Lens design is always a trade off between resolution, contrast and CA. However, he uses some wacky theories to explain why, probably to plug his magic magnets book.

I watch his videos as he is a funny guy.

>>2766069
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQm4C3iCk-I

This is one of them. He does about 3 videos a day so...

>>2766067
I bet they didn't have a sliver of scientific evidence for this, right?

Modern high-end glass is overall just flat-out better in tests though, isn't it?

Same reason why zoom lenses suck in comparison to prime lenses. You are essentially processing the shit out of the light when you have many layers of glass fucking with it before it hits your film/sensor.

As to the reasons why and how I doubt anybody but lens manufacturers know.

>>2766083
Do you want one lens that makes light scatter over 1000 pixels each?

Or are you going to bend the light a bunch of times until it's hitting the sensor at (close to - unfortunately certainly not only precisely) the right pixels?

Guess what, you have to compensate for glass manufacturing imprecision, various prism effects, and a lot more. Requires more pieces of glass.

>>2766067
>>2766082
>3d effect
This is actually quite well known in cinematography, but I wonder why so unknown in photography.

There's a company named Cooke which is specialized in producing lens with "simpler" design, tho still fast, made with modern glass. There's a comparison of their lenses and its pretty clear what is the 3d effect about.

From what I've talked to lf masters such as nanã sousa dias, they all have grasp of it, to say at least; but then, another class of photographers...

Isn't the real reason that primes > zooms due more specifically to the actual geometry of the glass, being cut in such a way that it compensates and allows for alternate focal lengths? —whereas a prime, being cut specifically for one focal length, allows for ideal geometry, and therefore produces a superior image?

>>2766083
>Same reason why zoom lenses suck in comparison to prime lenses. You are essentially processing the shit out of the light when you have many layers of glass fucking with it before it hits your film/sensor.
This is the kind of person that y'all are listening to on this site.

>>2766090
I've talked a lot but forgot the most important, the explanation: the more elements there are in a lens, the more 'image projections' are produced by each of them; and so each one of the elements corrects the image to a point, but also carries over their on defects to the next element, and so on; an usual modern resolution to this is to use symmetrical lens design, so basically each element has its pair antagonist to correct its owns defects in the final image. The deal is that each of the correct image projection is not anymore a projection of the 3d object as it is in reality, but a projection of a image to-be, which is partly already flattened image by the first element of the lens (which is a lens de facto in this matter).

I hope I've been clear enough to give some insight in the matter.

>>2766090
Science please.

In human perception. interpretation of depth is all of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

So tests measuring the accuracy of representation of some or all of these are relevant.

> There's a comparison of their lenses and its pretty clear what is the 3d effect about.
Where?

> From what I've talked to lf masters such as nanã sousa dias, they all have grasp of it, to say at least; but then, another class of photographers...
Master of what? Guy seems to take okay B&W shots.

There is nothing about his shots that would objectively suggest he is particularly good at designing or even selecting lenses.

>>2766067
>>2766082
>>2766090
Here's the comparison between Cooke lenses and Leica lenses I've talked about: > vimeo.com/90168989

It had spread quite a bit when it was released couple years ago, so probably some anons already have seen it.

>>2766102
Here's the comparison >>2766105

> There is nothing about his shots that would objectively suggest he is particularly good at designing or even selecting lenses.
Kek no. Thing is that he's a seascape photographer, so if you're not enthusiast of the style, it's rather difficult to find it enjoyable (maybe a bit like the jazz fusion he also plays). But if you pay attention and try to mimick his beach pics on 35mm instead of 4x5, you'll notice it'll look quite compressed, for the lenses to be that wide in 35mm, it has to be very complex (and leaves no room for camera movements); while in LF this wide angle can be achieved but a rather simple lens, and the final effect be bettered by camera movements. All in all his style is also not my favourite by any means, but there's a lot to master to recognize from his technique; and to recognize it you got to give it some thought, at least.

>>2766102
>Science please.
As I said, I have no article in hand explaining it for you. If you want to, you look up for yourself. I assure you It's a well know thing on the métier, tho. What I did was to read my way into basic optics (not photography specialized, but optics), and started from there...

>>2766105
>vimeo.com/90168989
I saw this video a while back. Worth a watch.

>>2766094
Yes, this is more closely it. Of course, the geometry of zoom lenses be quite suitable at some FL. So they're not always "just" worse.

>>2766105
What that one was looking for was subjectively get a lens that has a look "like in 1989", with his camera at 2k.

As far as I can tell, the Leica is a bit less sharp and somehow the color rendition is a bit different (maybe less neutral on the Leica?).

Can't really see anything with more 3D effect. He could as well claim the opposite for 3D effect and it'd not be any less logical to me.

Also, how is this glass doing better 3D than, say, just this piece of glass that produced a random sharp shot:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93319057@N07/19439877911/

(I'm obviously using some things from the WP article about depth perception... 'cause I'm not pinning it on the lens, beyond it being sharp and pretty accurate overall.)

>>2766125
The problem is: I found nothing. Scientific explanations of 3D perception try to order the importance of various effects and stuff, but I saw nobody who thinks they can show a lens with less glass (and less sharpness) makes things more 3D.

From experience, you can't trust artist's explanations for shit, unfortunately. "Job" is not reliable at all, since they're not verifying anything scientifically.

>>2766082
Not that I could find, like I said and as has been mentioned by >>2766090 and >>2766035 it seems like it's purely anecdotal and I'd like to think that it's because these people have used so many types of lenses that they've just come to realize over the years of working with them that the simpler ones produce finer looking images (I'm not talking pixel peeping sharpness at 80MP).

The only experience that I have with low-element but high quality glass is the Zeiss 2.8 Planar on a Rolleiflex (5 elements) and compared to the 15 element Nikon 24-70 2.8 I use on FX it looks much better (not just for medium format bokeh whoring, but actually stopped down). Although this might just be the fact that it's a medium format camera, I wish I had some older and simpler 35mm glass to compare like these guys are talking about.

>>2766068
>> Are lower element lenses really better than higher element more expensive lenses??
>No. They are not. We got plenty of tests to show this.
This.

Alright, there's a caveat here. The number of elements do *not* affect sharpness.

What they effect is the build quality.

Precisely placing 1 element is hella easier than precisely placing 3. If equipment has a tolerance of 1%, that 1 element lens will be 99% of where it needs to be. The three element lens will be 97% (this is actually ridiculously simplified because the way the elements and element groups interact can greatly amplify errors in certain positions and these numbers are all pulled out of my ass for illustration).

Anyway, the greater the number of elements, the greater the opportunity for variation. This is a real world, manufacturing limitation (not in that we can't do it, but we can't do it cheaply).

>>2766133
>"Job" is not reliable at all
As much as I understand your precautions, I tell you have a hard time finding a cinematography book that explain it to you scientifically; basically bc most of the time they expect you to know your shit well and to be able to tell some difference without going all the way down to scientifically controlled comparisons (autismo, y'know). I'll look up to see if I find something more detailed and explained than the video, tho.

>>2766133
>The problem is: I found nothing.
I've just remembered of Ctein's book "Post Exposure". The book is on finalization of a pic, but Ctein being the physicist he is, he spares a great deal of the book explaining scientifically how such phenomena as sharpness, depth etc happens de facto, and how it may be analyzed. (autismo, y'know, but purposeful)

It will not explain to you how it all happens, but is a great introduction. Here I posted a summarized scheme, >>2766098 , but you probably want to take a optics course as well.

>>2766135
> it seems like it's purely anecdotal and I'd like to think that it's because these people have used so many types of lenses that they've just come to realize over the years of working with them that the simpler ones produce finer looking images (I'm not talking pixel peeping sharpness at 80MP).
It never works like this, people can work the fields all their life and plant four dozen crops, they still will blame witches or the wrong color of fences rather than depletion of soil or suboptimal temperature in the critical moments when they don't use science.

We just aren't good at understanding problems unless we test them very systematically.

> produce finer looking images (I'm not talking pixel peeping sharpness at 80MP)
I think that's part of a finer / more 3D - looking image (it *does* affect depth perception - just apply blur to an image where you could precisely tell where things were in relation to each other - it will become so very hard eventually).

Either way, I can't find anything showing less glass helps with 3D perception. Not even benchmarked against some perceptual model.

>>2766151
> Ctein's book "Post Exposure"
Is online, and while I can't read it entirely, skimming it, it seems to have basically the same ideas as DxO and Imatest on how to test lenses, really, with nothing on 3D-ness.

In which case the best lenses again are the modern ones which test best in that regard, no?

Less glass will have more contrast and colour saturation at the cost of aberrations. Aberrations can be reduced using high index glass and aspherical elements (expensive).

All this talk of "3D" confuses the matter. The image is just "punchier".

Fast refracting telescopes for astrophotography usually have about 4 elements but cost a load of money.

>>2766154
>it seems to have basically the same ideas as DxO and Imatest on how to test lenses, really, with nothing on 3D-ness.
No. It talks about perception according to sharpness, color etc; it shows some data etc but book is focused on the view.

>In which case the best lenses again are the modern ones which test best in that regard, no?
Yea, but that's not the case.

Anyways, Ctein book is not a apology to 3d effect or such (there's enjoy the answer to thread); it's rather partly an introduction to what why and how can be explained the visual effects, in general.

>>2766168
>No. It talks about perception according to sharpness, color etc; it shows some data etc but book is focused on the view.
It talks about a lot, but there is a clear section on how to test lenses, page 83, sub-section titled "How to Test Lenses" on the edition that I have.

> Yea, but that's not the case.
It seems to be even according to the book you quoted? It's one of the things you should test. Not the only thing, but one of the things.

>Anyways, Ctein book is not a apology to 3d effect or such (there's enjoy the answer to thread); it's rather partly an introduction to what why and how can be explained the visual effects, in general.
Yes, I think so too.

But that's just again "evidence' for that mythical 3D effect being something real turning out *not* to be evidence at all.

The author of this book doesn't mention or care for it, and he instead lists the typical criteria for lenses we use normally (the professional reviewers, DxO and so on do).

At this point, I'll place the suggestion that the increased 3D-ness of lenses with less elements is just a semi-common superstition that has no base in facts... we can't seem to dig up any at all.

>>2766140

You are literally disagreeing with what the Zeiss master lens designer said in the granger interview video.

I am somehow inclined to believe that more elements do effect lens sharpness over what some faggot on 4chan thinks

>AP actually being this skinny
When was this screenshot from? What's the source

>>2766078
>I ignore his videos on "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" and take his claims of being a master archer, chess champion, translator of Ancient Greek. Russian, Sanskrit, etc. with a large grain of salt.

I've added it all up, he's over 500 years old. He's a fucking Highlander.

>>2766638
>I am somehow inclined to believe that more elements do effect lens sharpness over what some faggot on 4chan thinks

More to do with micro-contrast and depth rendition than sharpness. I've seen comparison shots and there does seem to be a subtle improvement with low element primes.

>>2766762
Looks like it's from his early Buddhism vids.

>>2766886

Can they still be found?

>>2766889
Yes, if you scroll down his vids for half an hour.

>>2766090
>3d effect
This just sounds like bs if I'm honest. What is the actual, objective difference between an image with good/high 3d effect and bad/low 3d effect?

>>2766898

I have no idea about the technical side of things but there are lenses with a definite 3d effect, they just have a lot more dimension.

I know the Pentax pk 28mm f/2.0 is spoken about a lot for having what people refer to as the 3d effect

Check out some samples

>>2766898
it's a buzzword used to describe microcontrast / sharpness / clarity of in-focus areas and how quickly things smooth away when out of focus

>>2766903
Not only that, but it's also so strongly affected by the composition of the particular shot, display conditions and individual perception, that I highly doubt anyone would be reliably able to tell a lens that's considered "good" at "3d effect" from a lens that's considered "bad" in a blind test with random sample shots.

Basically, it's the same as audiophile buzzwords like "soundstage transparency" etc.

Many of his ideas on photography, but mostly the philosophy of photography, are pretty valuable.

On the other hand, his understanding of Greek is a bit weird. He pronounces it like (Americanized) Modern Greek even though his use of words do not correspond to it and are more likely taken from an older dialect, maybe Classical Greek. It's strange. Like, his username literally means "theory of decisions", but in his Greek the words have a totally different meaning that modern speakers wouldn't catch.

Anyway...

>GLASS IS THE DEVIL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpbmmeWfkek

>sexy lenses

>>2768759
That fucking laugh, I fucking love him

>>2766055
>clinical sharpness
>clinical
>photography
not a thing

>>2768778
explain the importance of this post and the semantics behind it because right now i don't know what you're trying to say to me

>>2768798
Clinical (or bedside) medical practice, based on observation and treatment of patients as opposed to theory or basic science

>>2768802
okay look at this also copy and pasted definition of the word "clinical"

>efficient and unemotional; coldly detached.

besides, you knew exactly what i was talking about you /lit/ reject

>>2768806
Clinical = Medicine you illiterate piece of shit

literally just google your non-photography term "clinical sharpness"

THE TOP HITS ARE FROM MEDICAL JOURNALS

>>2768811
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+clinical

"clinical sharpness" isn't a unique concept, but rather clinical is modifying sharpness to imply that the lens is technically perfect to the point of being unappealing in a human art such as photography

why are you sperging out about this

>>2768825
because i hear the word clinical used correctly on a daily basis so your idiotic use of it triggers me

>>2768840
okay, remember when i quoted and linked you to a definition that's absolutely fine

are you literally a triggered autismo

this is the sort of shit that would need a post on tumblr explaining that you had an autistic breakdown so people should stop sending hateful messages

>>2768840
>gives people shit for using "clinical" incorrectly
>uses "idiotic" incorrectly in the same sentence