Theatre of noise - Seite 2 
Development of Symmetrical Lenses
This article will outline the development of symmetrical lens designs conventionally described as double Gauss. These include the Zeiss Planar, Lee Opic, and Biotar, as well as the vast majority of normal lenses made from 1896 to the end of the twentieth century. It's not too much to claim this innovation as the most important in lens design for camera systems. In the appendix “Lenses and Their Makers” Cox lists many symmetrical lenses that were on the market at the time. Pages 484-97 of his book (see my references) contain no fewer than 64 different lens diagrams. But if we restrict the survey to 35mm film cameras, only four of the designs were used by more than one lens. That's remarkable consistency! Symmetrical lenses Symmetrical lenses have the stop (aperture) located between two doublets. This design can correct coma, distortion, astigmatism, and chromatic aberration, though spherical aberration and field curvature were both still apparent. In the diagrams below this stop is indicated by the vertical opening, perpendicular to the lens axis. This form derives from a simultaneous innovation in 1866. J.H. Dallmeyer (1830-83) in the UK developed the Rapid-Rectilinear at the same time that H.A. Steinheil (1832-93) in Germany designed the Aplanat. Wide-angle and portrait variants of the Rapid-Rectilinear were produced. To keep aberrations under control, the maximum aperture was constrained to f/8. Various other symmetrical designs followed. In 1888 Alvan Graham Clark (1832-97) created the double Gauss for Bausch & Lomb. This was based on doubling the elements in an 1817 telescope design by mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss. This was perhaps an unusual template to choose, since Gauss' design was never successful enough for production. Neither was Clark's own f/8 lens viable in the marketplace.In this context it's odd that this lineage of lens development is commonly named after the "double Gauss", as this was a failure and not even the first symmetrical arrangement! Improvements awaited better materials. In 1885 barium crown glass was created by E. Abbe (1840-1905) and O. Schott (1851-1935) at Jena Glassworks. The immediate application was correcting astigmatism in microscope lenses. But immediately photographic applications were considered. In 1888 Heinrich Ludwig Hugo Schroeder (1834-1903) used this glass in his Concentric at Ross & Co. (London). However uncorrected spherical aberration limited the aperture to an unrealistic f/20. Success came in 1890 with the designs of Paul Rudolph (1858-1935) at Carl Zeiss Jena. Five and four element purely symmetrical designs were marketed initially under the name Anastigmat, since the design improved on correcting astigmatism relative to earlier attempts. As this term became generally applied to such corrected lenses, Zeiss adopted the unique moniker Protar for marketing purposes. The fastest of these lenses achieved f/4.5. In 1896 Rudolph created an enhanced 6 elements in 4 group design for the Zeiss Planar f/4. This became the template for many other successful lenses that followed. It is not too much to claim this as the single most important design breakthrough in photography... as Zeiss themselves are wont to do. Other authors (Cox is one of them) prefer crediting the British firm of Taylor, Taylor & Hobson (Leicester, England), perhaps due to their prevalence in the cinema world. In 1920 they released the Series 0 f/2 lens, more commonly known as the Lee Opic, after its designer Horace William Lee. While elements had changed size and values, it's clear how much the topology owed to the Planar. Lee updated the design to the Ultra Panchro 50mm f/1.4 in 1927 and the Speed-Panchro 50mm f/1.5 in 1930 or 1931. These were notable for having different front and back elements, hence being asymmetrical. (See the last section for a discussion of this terminology.) You can see that the front is very like a Planar but the back more like the Lee Opic. Eventually Cooke Optics was spun-off from TTH and continues to this day. Their current products and reputation are still reliant upon the designs mentioned here.In 1925 designer Albrecht Wilhelm Tronnier at Jos. Schneider & Co. Optische Werke followed the symmetrical mold, creating the Schneider-Krueznach Xenon f/4.3. The following year the improved Schneider-Krueznach Xenon f/1.8 was released for cinema. In 1927 Willy Walter Merté at Zeiss Jena created a very similar design for cinema under the name Biotar 50mm f/1.4. Further symmetrical lens design This section will list the chronological development of symmetrical lenses, beginning with additional 6 elements in 4 group designs: 1932: Leitz Wetzlar Summar 50/2 1936: Zeiss Biotar f/2 for Ihagee’s Kine Exakta camera, the first widely available SLR 1939: Leitz Wetzlar Summitar 50/2 1949: Zeiss Biotar f/2 for Volkseigener Betrieb (VEB)’s Zeiss Ikon Contax SSeveral 6 elements in 5 group designs were created concurrent with the above: 1935: Schneider-Krueznach Xenon 50/1.9 1935: Schneider-Krueznach Xenon 50/2 1950: Voigtländer Ultron 50/2 for Voigtländer Vitessa Notable 7 elements in 5 group designs were initiated by the Speed-Panchro 58mm: 1930 TTH Super Speed-Panchro 58/1.5 1959 Carl Zeiss Planar 55/1.4 1964 Canon 50/0.95 While Leica pursued six element designs they also released several important 7 elements in 4 group configurations: 1939: Leitz Summitar 50/2 1949: Leitz Summarit 50/1.5 1953: Leitz Summicron 50/2 The following was released for only about a year as an 8 element in 7 group design. It was then replaced by a version that was less expensive to manufacture. 1964: Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 50/1.4 The configuration of 7 elements in 6 group became widespread: 1965: Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 50/1.4 1975: SMC Pentax 50/1.2 1975: SMC Pentax 50/1.4 1975: Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 1977: SMC Pentax-M 50/1.4 …and many more Contemporary practice According to Jonas and Thorpe of Leica, the double Gauss design reached its design limits with the Summilux 35mm f/1.4. Created in 1958, at a time when ray tracing had to be performed manually, this lens nonetheless optimised aberration control to a degree that could not be improved with computerisation. At this time glass elements had a spherical profile and hence spherical aberration were an unavoidable quantity. The next materials innovation was the creation of aspherical elements. Though expensive to produce, optimal use in a design could reduce aberrations to a level previously unheard of. The Summilux 35mm f/1.4 ASPH of 1991 improved on the previous models (at least in technical terms). Since the 1990s computer-aided design, improved materials, and the ability to assemble high numbers of elements have left the simpler designs described above behind. However this doesn't mean that the Planar / Opic / Biotar / Panchro perform any worse now than they ever did. In fact, photographers increasingly turn to antique lenses for a distinctive character that has perhaps been lost in more technically perfect lenses. Manufacturers are even creating new products to emulate these designs. Final word on terminology There is some inconsistency in how the word "symmetrical" is used to describe these designs. Some authors take this to include any design where there are lens elements on either side of the stop. Other authors reserve this term for lenses with exactly the same elements on either side of the stop.
This article will outline a brief history of early lens design, starting with the simplest 2 element topologies for daguerreotype cameras. This can be considered as background my article on symmetrical designs. This is by no means complete. For that you will need to read many chapters in the books I list in my references. Tracing lens development The history of photographic lens development is naturally mixed with that of other optical devices: telescopes, microscopes, projectors, and cinema lenses. All use similar optical principles but have different constraints, based on the intended use. My contemporary interest is in cameras that shoot 135mm film or their digital equivalents. But inventions in the early years primarily targeted cinema cameras and other devices, so these will also be described when appropriate. My interest began by reading old forum threads about lens patents. it soon became clear that a narrative constructed in this way could be misleading, since many ideas were not developed into actual products. And these products, even if they were first to market, were not necessarily financially successful or influential on future work. It’s difficult to know the tenor of the times from documentation. Which lens designers were the talk of the town? Which new discoveries were whispered about in cafés? Which inventions were, in fact, important? Some of this can be gathered from how popular the given solution became, how much it was copied by subsequent inventors, and how many products based on this solution actually sold. In discussing lens formulae it is common to use the notation “x elements in y groups”, which specifies the total count and configuration of individual pieces of glass. A “group” here is two or more elements cemented together. But this notation describes the optics quite poorly. Four elements in two groups could mean two pairs of doublets, with an air gap between. But it could just as readily be applied to one lens element plus three cemented together into a triplet. The common specification is minimal to the point of obscurity, omitting the shape of the glass, the material and its refractive index, the relative position of the aperture, etc. Vendors might additionally provide a diagrammatic representation of the optical structure. From this we can at least ascertain the overall topology, which is enough to trace lens lineage. In passing I will note the confusing term “lens”. This rightly refers to an individual optical element in an optical design. But it also means the total assemblage of lens elements and other physical structures that you mount on a camera. The context should make the meaning clear. Before continuing, it is worth reading the glossary of common terminology. Here are the common lens elements that are combined to create an optical design. The challenge of lens design is to render a perfect virtual image onto the focal plane. Shaped glass can be used to bend light rays as they travel through that material, the refractive index being a numerical measure of how much the light bends (typical values range from 1.5 to 1.8). Lens elements are either positive, which act to converge light, or negative, which diverge light. A strong positive element with a weaker negative element is a standard combination. The overall effect is still converging, but such compound lenses can reduce chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, and coma. However further elements are required to reduce field curvature and astigmatism. Early lens designs The cameras of Louis Daguerre (1787–1851) required innovations in the then nascent understanding of optics. Charles Chevalier (1804-59) applied his knowledge from telescopes and microscopes to the new science of photography. By 1839 his simple combination of biconcave and biconvex elements became the standard for daguerreotype cameras sold by Alphonse Giroux. At the same time N.M.P. Lerebours (1807-1873) produced a 2 element design using plano-concave and biconvex elements for Gaudin, with the stop place much closer to the glass. Since these cameras were limited to f/15 many otherwise important aberrations could be ignored. Such French landscape lenses (as they were called) were popular for a century. In bright sun, such a lens required 30 minute for an exposure. Encouraged by a prize being offered for any improvement, Joseph Max Petzval (1807-1891) set about designing optics fast enough to be used for portraiture.His solution was a 4 element in 3 groups design using a cemented doublet telescope objective with a separate achromat. The resulting 150mm f/3.6 was about 20 times as fast as the landscape lens. This made up for its defects, including severe vignetting. (This look has become associated with portraits of the time.)Manufactured by P.W.F. Voigtlander (1812-1878) in Vienna, the design was popular until the 1920s. Even after such designs were superseded for camera optics, Petzval lenses remained in use for projector s. Today, photographers are rediscovering and adapting antique lenses of this form to discover the special optical character of designs quite different from modern photographic lenses. Between 1860 and 1890 Thomas Rudolph Dallmeyer (1859-1906) made many innovations, including a portrait lens that was sold as the Bausch & Lomb f/4 Series A. In 1878 Johann Friedrich Voigtlander (1779-1859) created a different 4 element configuration that was common on 8mm and 16mm projectors. Another lasting design became known as the Cooke triplet. This was created by Harold Dennis Taylor (1862–1943) at T. Cooke & Sons, York, UK in 1893. In fact he registered three similar patents with the air gaps and stops changed in size and disposition. Such lenses were manufactured by Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson (Leicester), beginning a relationship between Cooke and TTH that would last until the present day. The Cox appendix on Cooke triplets (pages 496-511) lists about 150 lenses available for 135 format, in 68 different optical design. But of these only four are used by several manufacturers. The apparent profusion hides a standardisation of lens designs.
Planar / Tessar / Sonnar / Distagon
A recent question about the naming scheme adopted for Carl Zeiss lenses encouraged me to do a little research. So I wrote the first version of this article... but then I couldn't stop reading about lens design! So now you can enjoy an entire series by clicking on the banner above. Creative names like Planar, Sonnar, and Tessar were initially used to describe families of optical designs. But later they were used for marketing reasons, so the original meanings were not always preserved.I now have more detailed articles on the development of lenses in the nineteenth century and those that used the symmetrical pattern. This article repeats some of that information, but from the perspective of Carl Zeiss offerings, in particular the Contax-Yashica line. (Since these are personal favourites.) The first Planar lens was designed by Paul Rudolph in 1896 using a symmetrical arrangement of six elements in four groups. This was derived from the four-element "double Gauss" design created by Alvan Graham Clark in 1888. But by adding two more pieces of glass, Rudolph was able to lower field curvature and distortion. Hence the name, derived from "plane". In 1927 Willy Merté tweaked the Planar formula in order to create a series of lenses with unusually large apertures for the time (f/2 and f/1.4). These were named Biotar, the prefix referring to the dynamic photography possible with high speeds (nothing to do with biology). Many subsequent normal to short telephoto (50-135mm focal length) lenses derive from this work. However the West German branch of Carl Zeiss retained the Planar naming to distinguish themselves from their East German counterparts in Jena. Here are some examples from the Carl Zeiss line for Contax-Yashica mount, with their formulas indicated: Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 (7 in 6)Planar T* 50mm f/1.7 (7 in 6)Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 (6 in 5) Planar T* 100mm f/2.0 (6 in 5) Planar T* 135mm f/2.0 (5 in 5) There are two variants of this naming. Some old models are called S-Planar to indicate that these are optimised for close-up use only. Subsequent Makro-Planar lenses also have high magnification but do not sacrifice distance performance for close-up performance. In the Contax-Yashica line we have:Makro-Planar T* 60mm f/2.8 (6 in 4)Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2.8 (7 in 7) Paul Rudolph's next innovation came in 1902. He took aspects from two previous designs, Unar and Protar, to create the Tessar, a compact and inexpensive design. The name derives from the Greek word for "four", the number of lens elements. The Contax-Yashica system includes the Tessar T* 45mm f/2.8 (4 elements in 3 groups), which is typically slower than other available normals. The telephoto lenses named Tele-Tessar have more than four elements and bear the Tessar label for marketing purposes only. Those with better chromatic aberration correction were named Apotessar.Aposonnar T* 200mm f/2 (11 in 9)Tele-Tessar T* 200mm f/3.5 (6 in 5)Tele-Tessar T* 200mm f/4 (6 in 5)Tele-Apotessar T* 300mm f/2.8 (8 in 7)Tele-Tessar T* 300mm f/4 (5 in 5) The third main Zeiss design line is the Sonnar, invented by Ludwig Bertele. The name derives from the German "Sonne" meaning "sun". This indicated the bright aperture provided by the 50mm f/2 in 1929. But in the Contax line the Planars are the fast lenses while the Sonnars instead balance compact size and high image quality at a lower price. Sonnar T* 85mm f/2.8 (5 in 4) Sonnar T* 100mm f/3.5 (5 in 4) Sonnar T* 135mm f/2.8 (5 in 4) At one time even a 35mm focal length was considered "wide" but today designers push the limits of what is possible. Obtaining a wide field of view presents an intriguing engineering problem due to the increasingly oblique incident light rays, which must be bent a great deal more than light in a normal lens. If previous designs are adapted, the final lens element ends up ever-closer to the camera body, or indeed projecting inside it altogether! This was the approach taken for Biogon lenses. The physical extent meant that these were suitable only for systems without mechanisms in front of the film plane. The first Biogon, designed by Ludwig Bertele in 1936, was a 35mm f/2.8 for the Contax rangefinder system. The suffix “gon” derives from the Greek word for angle and signifies a wide angle lens. In 1966 the unusual Hologon 16 mm extreme wide angle was released for the Contax G system. The prefix derives from the Greek “holos”, meaning “everything” or “complete”. SLRs required a novel design since the lens mechanism could not encroach backwards to the mirror assembly. The solution was to place a large negative element in front of the standard lens assemblage. This breakthrough was simultaneously developed in two labs. Pierre Angénieux named the result retrofocus while Harry Zoellner at Carl Zeiss Jena named theirs Flektogon. The separation of West and East Germany again necessitated new nomenclature. Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen created their first Distagon in 1952. At this time manual calculations were made for all optics. This precluded wide-angle lenses from being both fast and free from distortion, coma, and lateral chromatic aberration. But them the computer-aided design revolution in the mid-1970s made possible incredible lenses for Contax SLR. Distagon T* 15mm f/3.5 (13 in 12) Distagon T* 18mm f/4 (10 in 9) Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 (15 in 13) Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 (8 in 7) Distagon T* 28mm f/2 (9 in 8) Distagon T* 28mm f/2.8 (7 in 7) Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 (9 in 8) Distagon T* 35mm f/2.8 (6 in 6) The best of these is acknowledged to be the Distagon 21mm f/2.8, designed by Karl-Heinz Schuster in 1992. Truly a no-holds-barred design with 15 elements!Next we have the F-Distagon, which indicates a non-rectilinear geometry: "F" for fish-eye. F-Distagon T* 16mm f/2.8 (8 in 7) Finally there are PC-Distagons, the prefix standing for "perspective correction". Such lenses project a larger image circle than strictly required for the 135 format. Mechanics are provided for tilt and/or shift functionality, providing some of the functionality of a large format camera. PC-Distagon T* 35mm f/2.8 (9 in 9) Please check out the remainder of the lens design series.
Brooks / Faustine / Seyrig / Karina
On Morel and Marienbad I wonder why it has taken until now for me to read The Invention of Morel (Adolfo Bioy Casares, 1940), given the fascination it exerted on Borges. That writer's many stories, poems, and fake encyclopedia entries provided a fluid substrate for my own imagination. I read him early and enthusiastically, relating his fabulist output back to more conventional science-fiction. So how did I forget Bioy, his colleague and friend? Borges even wrote the (original) introduction to this book. There is a story here to uncover through figures of representation and obsession. Brooks / Faustine / Seyrig / Karina. I've made a few belated discoveries. The absence of Morel from my own history is particularly surprising considering that this slim novel was the inspiration for Last Year at Marienbad (Alain Resnais, 1961). That being perhaps my favourite film, though alongside many others that might be called favourites. Somehow in my years of watching this film and reading about its place in the context of both Resnais and Robbe-Grillet, I had missed this reference. Despite it being mentioned often enough. Read for example Thomas Beltzer's "Last Year at Marienbad: An Intertextual Meditation" (November 2000) at Sense of Cinema. Previously Marienbad had stood as an enigmatic totem, alone on a landscape, casting false shadows. Morel provides an antecedent for that most mysterious filmic event. The place Marienbad is even mentioned by name early in the narrative. Is is easy to see Faustine in Delphine Seyrig, even if the narrator's position has been modified from pure observer to participant. The cover blurb of Morel's New York Review edition mentions Philip K. Dick. But the strange angular style of this text, its settings and character arc, instead prefigure J.G. Ballard. He too wrote of solitary figures, lost in realities at least partially the construction of their own psyches, partly provided for them by totalising forces beyond comprehension. The tidal lagoon is a terminal beach. The cover shot of Louise Brooks acknowledges Bioy's obsession, the object of his amour fou transferred on these pages to the character Faustine. The mysterious withdrawing of a once pervasive figure from the world of film becomes a symbol for the protagonist's own isolation. The omission of this book from my life becomes even stranger considering my enjoyment of Hombre Mirando Al Sudeste / Man Facing Southeast (Eliseo Subiela, 1986), in which the psychiatrist reads aloud from this novel. Then there's a French TV movie L'invention de Morel (Claude-Jean Bonnardot, 1967) and subsequent Italian film L'invenzione di Morel (Emidio Greco, 1974). At two hours in length, this might just be bearable, if only for the presence of Anna Karina. Perhaps an appropriate diagram for the intersectional nature of these mediations is a helix. Plot the following coordinates: (Brooks, 1927) (Faustine, 1940) (Seyrig, 1961) (Karina, 1974) Then add your own vector. As a fan of cinema, the novel, and the cine-roman. As a subject of each medium in a world largely constructed from their imagery.
Why you shouldn't learn from YouTube
This article risks being read as an "old man yells at cloud" post. But I am driven to write it to counter a lack of critical thinking about what YouTube means for education. Specifically, how that channel misleads learners and damages learning itself. Before I itemise the problems with YouTube tutorials, I will provide some context.The pedagogical context I teach in a third-level environment, that is, I am a university lecturer. This gives me considerable responsibility for the learning of young people, a duty that I take seriously. University is not only a place where knowledge is imparted and critical thinking developed, it is where young people mature as adults, through social interactions and personal challenges. Awareness of this complex situation has shaped my teaching philosophy after years of reflexive practice. That practice has included other quite different contexts. My first full-time teaching job was in the high-pressure world of corporate software training. That role took me to Toronto, New York, etc. to teach clients in condensed, mind-bendingly intense week-long courses. At one point I was the only person in the world qualified to teach an advanced database programming course. The money was decent but I burnt out, as expected. Living in hotels sucks. But through my experience I learned that a good lecturer will present material visually, aurally, in text and diagrams, while providing hands-on activities in labs, all the while engaging learners as a community of interest. I also spend a decent proportion of time writing here on my blog. Admittedly a blog can't do everything outlined above, but neither does it try to. I maintain this site to document my many interests. It's a "brain dump" so that I can free up more cortex for other things. Writing forces me to be structured and fill in the gaps in my knowledge. Sometimes I've even made video tutorials for YouTube. Certainly I've watched a large number of tutorials myself, both for my own education and to understand how these are structured. This has led to some conclusions about the platform. The problems with YouTube I'm not trying to claim that you can't garner useful information or solve specific problems using YouTube. I know I have. My point is rather that YouTube inherently embeds structural problems that are antithetical to learning. 1. Videos overwhelmingly emphasise the presenter's ego. Often the entire video will consist of a talking head, as though facial features are the most important content to deliver. If that's all you have to show, consider being a model, but perhaps don't make a tutorial video. 2. Videos in the technical realm emphasise tools over technique. This bias is driven by a need to commodify. Often the maker of the tool might be a sponsor. But even if not, the underlying message is aspirational: Product X will save you from Problem Y. But very rarely are these problems and their potential solutions put into a meaningful context. Mostly because that takes a lot more work. The result is very much a promotional video that fails to supply context. 3. There's a lack of emphasis on workflow and organisational principles. I watch videos on photography, videography, post-production, audio synthesis and audio engineering, computer hardware, software coding, etc. What is important in all those fields is workflow management. Tools are secondary, but you wouldn't know that from YouTube. (This is the flipside of point 2.) 4. Misuse of the word "professional" to refer to gear. Again, driven by marketing. This is now so omnipresent that readers might find it hard to see that the problem. In short: a thing cannot be professional. A tool won't make you a pro. Being professional is a matter of ethics. It signifies that you are sworn to uphold certain principles and will deal with your clients and your public for their best interests, not your own. The denigration of this term by marketing is one of many sad impacts of rampant capitalism. 5. Lack of knowledge in the field presented as expert opinion. Every discipline takes thousands of hours to learn. But many videographers set off on YouTube while still young and relatively untutored. They might have discovered some amazing fact and think they are the first to do so. This lack of context leads to misleading claims. 6. Falsehoods are reinforced as YouTubers repeat, without analysis, the claims of others. The need to keep up with competitors trumps fact-checking. In many ways, the medium is like a giant rumour mill. The problem is that after hearing a statement ten times on YouTube, a learner will then assume it's true. You need a 32-bit recorder to get good sound. Narrow DOF makes your video more "cinematic". These are examples of such misinformation. 7. YouTubers lack awareness of their own situation as salespeople. One example is the disclaimer product reviewers repeat: "I received this product for free but no money changed hands, so I am unbiased." Such a statement indicates ignorance of unconscious bias and renders the speaker untrustworthy. (For this reason I have refused sponsorships when they've come knocking. Which, surprisingly, they have!)A few root causes are evident: a cult of personality, the commodification of the platform, a focus on style over substance, a lack of barriers to entry. Because, yes, some barriers are good. That's why doctors and car mechanics are licensed. Nor would you ask someone on the street to pull a tooth. (Well, OK, maybe in India!) Are these problems limited to YouTube, or are they also applicable to video instruction in general? It's clear to me that the quest for likes and sponsorships warps what a learning environment should be: a communal place of mutual experience. There's nothing wrong with video instruction in and of itself, if such content is used within a larger context of multimodal teaching. So, yes, the problem is YouTube. or, more precisely, the culture of commodification that YouTube has engendered. Now, about that pesky cloud...
What flowers say about your photo gear
What do flowers say about your photography gear? It's all good. Stop chasing more equipment. What you have is fine. They say: F4 and be there. And: Aren't we pretty? With the punchline out of the way, I'll explain in some detail. The setup Yesterday the light was nice in the kitchen, so I took some photos of a flower arrangement, using the Panasonic Lumix S5 camera. I didn't fuss over perfection. I more or less got the same perspective on the subject with each lens. I shot hand-held using the excellent stabilisation built into the camera. I used a series of adapted vintage lenses, shooting from wide open to F4 at ISO 400. These were: Contax Carl Zeiss Planar 100mm F2 (1981)Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 85mm F2 (1975)Contax Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 (1975)Pentax-M 50mm F1.7 (1977) The results you can see in this Flickr album. My basic development in Affinity Photo has been applied but no retouching. The observations 1. Though I cropped to a square aspect, I did so on the right-hand side of the image. This means that the top-right and bottom-right corners are from the original frame. Vignetting? Nothing to see here. 2. Most of the photos are sharp enough. Though it's difficult to nail focus with an aperture wider than F2. I took these shots as quickly as possible. Perfect focus and composition was not my aim. 3. All the shots have a thin depth of field that focuses attention on the subject. All have a blurry enough background. I'd say that those shot at F1.4 and F1.8 don't have enough of the subject in focus. I was shooting at the close focus distance in each case, so this is also a factor. 4. All the images have a nice bokeh quality, even at F4. Even the 50mm focal lengths. 5. The colours are great. The lovely Panasonic camera reproduced the scene as I saw it. 6. The Carl Zeiss lenses have a very consistent rendering. The Pentax is a tiny bit duller, but nothing I wouldn't fix (without even thinking) during the development process. The discussion Now I can make some general conclusions. Here is where I respond to misinformation that circles the internet, fuelled by YouTube videos from so-called experts. (I am going to need to rant about that more later.) Vintage lenses can be just as good as contemporary lenses for the photography most of us practice. Already by the mid-1970s glass was as good as we needed. Get over thinking that there have been major developments in optics in the last four decades. Of course there are edge cases. I am not talking to professional sports shooters here. (Because they have no reason to read my blog.) Consider that most of the time we are staging photos in one of two ways. One. We have a subject somewhere near the middle of the frame and a bunch of background elsewhere. We want the eye to go to the subject, so we choose a narrow depth-of-field, as I have done here. In this case F4 might well be good enough. Certainly if I was further from my subject I might want F2.8. But the only reason I need to go to F2 is because I am constrained by low light, not because it results in a better image. Two. We want a sharp image corner to corner, say for a landscape. Then we stop down to F8, F11, or F16, depending on when diffraction kicks in. Any half-decent lens will then provide a perfect image. Increasingly I see people complaining that their lens is not sharp from corner to corner at F1.4. What scenarios call for that aperture? The answer: none. These comments are driven by an unrealistic desire for a lens to be the ultimate at every task. Choose your tools for the job and then learn how to use them. There is a good counter-argument to vintage lenses from the perspective of automation. Do you need auto-focus? OK, fine. In that case, use a contemporary lens optimised for your system. But I would also encourage you to practice your manual focus techniques, because photography is simply more fun that way. And you have more control. You can then stop complaining about how your auto-focus system is not intelligent enough to guess what you want to shoot. That alone would remove one-third of all internet traffic about photography. Do you need a lens with built-in stabilisation? No, not if your camera already has this function. Get a better camera system. Seriously. IBIS is an essential feature in 2024 if you like to shoot hand-held in low light. There are further provisos. It should be clear that I choose my lenses carefully, favouring high-quality glass. For me this means Zeiss, Leica, and Pentax. Leica is too expensive and their best lenses work optimally on rangefinders. That leaves the other two brands for me to source. And yes, I know there are fantastic lenses from other manufacturers. In fact, I would say that during the 1970 and 1980s every company made good lenses: Olympus, Minolta, etc. But very few are better than Zeiss and Pentax. I also target lenses that do not impart their own style to the image. I realise that for many people "vintage" implies a certain swirly bokeh, lens flares, and other artefacts. The resulting image is then as much about the tool that made it, as it is about the subject. That's OK. Lens fetishism is a thing. You do you and go for your out-of-control aberrations. That's of little interest to me. That's why I am using high-quality West German and Japanese lenses and not the cheap hit-or-miss products from the former USSR. OK, so recently I took some nice photos with a Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm. But this set would have been just as nice with the Pentax. And I would have had more latitude to explore shots that didn't need to hide the poor corners and other issues. The elephant in the room is price. I can spend six grand for a contemporary 50mm lens in L-mount. Seriously. It's called the Leica Summilux-SL 50/1.4 ASPH. Or I can spend €350 for the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4. To me that's already a lot of cash, but Zeiss is well-respected and commands a high price.Remarkably the most I need to pay for the excellent bog-standard Pentax-M 50/1.7 is €50. Because Pentax isn't "cool" and flies under the radar of collectors (in most cases). On the other hand something like the Jena Pancolar is hyped in YouTube videos and so costs twice that of the superior Pentax. Which lens will take better photos? Well, I'll be stopping down to F2 anyway, since I want something in focus. The rest you can guess. So, what do the flowers say? They tell me that ultra-fast glass is useless since I want a subject in focus. They encourage me to learn about exposure and focusing. They say: With all the money you save on lenses, you can buy several thousand more... of us!Flowers. Sheesh. Always thinking of themselves.
Recommended headphones 2024
Buying headphones is confusing since there are dozens of manufacturers and hundreds of models. The popular style brands (e.g. Beats) promoted to the mass public are consistently over-priced, badly made, and terrible-sounding. The high-price models promoted to audiophiles cost far more than you need to spend. This article is for people who record, mix, and compose music. It's for listeners who need to hear what their music actually sounds like, without embellishment or false augmentation. For you my decades of experience will come in handy! This updates my article from a decade ago.Selection criteria 1. Forget in-ear buds. You should protect your hearing by never sticking anything in your ear. I make an exception for live sound engineers who need hearing protection... but those devices should be custom moulded. 2. Forget wireless phones, noise-cancelling, and other gimmicks. These diminish sound quality or introduce points of failure. 3. I will target a price under €300. If you have more money, buy more than one set of headphones, each for a different purpose. (Three such tasks are outlined below.) A good set of headphones will last for a decade or more. The prices are a bargain considering the use value. 4. This article is for European readers. Some brands (e.g. AKG) hve radically higher prices in North America and elsewhere. Sorry. 5. Longevity will be assured by choosing only models with detachable cables and replaceable earpads. Further, only those with single-sided cables are included, as this design avoids tangles and wear. 6. Only models with low impedance will be included, so they can be effectively driven from any device. Most (so-called) audiophile headphones require dedicated pre-amps, which is not a practical solution. 7. Another convenience factor: all selected models have a 3.5mm plug (minijack) with a screw-on adapter to 6.3mm (jack). So you are good to plug into any portable device, mixer, or other audio system. 8. Headphones for daily use need a robust and comfortable build. This is very much a personal matter. Eyeglass wearers (like me) are at a disadvantage. I will provide today's pricing at retailer Thomann. The recommended models will be in boldface, though other worthy choices will get a mention. Open headphones for mixing Adding up all these factors the winning brand for me, time after time, is AKG. This company was once known only to studio professionals, but in the past decade or two they have introduced many models to the general public. Those can be forgotten. The value of this brand lies in the tried and true classics. Once made in Austria to high standards, the price has now dropped significantly with manufacturing moving to Asia. But they are still recommended. Open headphones will leak sound to those sitting nearby. Similarly, you will not be able to completely obscure the outside world. That is sometimes advantageous... and in any case results in a smoother, more balanced sound. Open cans are best used for mixing and simple music enjoyment. These designs are circumaural, meaning that the ear pads sit around your ears, for greater comfort. However, these headphones are bulky. My current daily headphones are the AKG K-712 Pro (€260), which are are open, circumaural cans with a single-sided detachable cable, using a mini three-pin connector. The headband adjusts automatically for a comfortable fit. While no headphones have a smooth frequency curve, I find that these sound very good indeed with an EQ adjustment. I boost 7.5 dB at 3.6 kHz and cut 5 dB at 6 kHz, both with a high Q for a sharp curve. One step down in the line are the AKG K-702 (€140) which sound very similar, only with less bass and slightly less finesse. Honestly, you are never going to know the difference except in a side-by-side comparison. They are an incredible bargain. The AKG K-701 (€130) are a white version of the above. So buy whichever is cheaper (today the white ones) or whichever suits your personal style. The Sennheiser HD 650 (€350) are recommended over AKG by many reviewers but they do not meet our criteria. They are over our price limit and have a two-sided cable. Closed headphones Closed headphones are best used for tracking (recording) or listening scenarios where you wish isolation from the outside world. The sound signature tends to be more boxy. AKG K-271 MkII (€115) are simply the best for studio use. They are circumaural with a single-sided detachable cable. The self-adjusting headband has a hidden feature: a switch that automatically mutes the sound when you take the headphones off. This means that you don't get leakage on the studio floor. I don't know why other models don't include this fantastic feature! As a bonus to the already excellent price, the package includes two different cables and two sets of earpads. AKG K-240 MkII (€77) are a less-expensive option that are actually not closed but "semi-open." Hence they are sometimes recommended as mixing headphones... but they are nowhere near as clean as the open options above. They don't have the same bonus items as the K-271 and don't have the magical auto-mute. Beyerdynamic DT-770 Pro 80 Ohms (€150) are often recommended in this category (closed, circumaural) but they do not meet our criteria since the single-sided cable is not replaceable. But if you do consider this model, be aware that there are several similar cans with different impedance figures. You want the 80 ohm version. Location / DJ headphones In this category are less bulky headphones that travel well and provide high isolation. Sennheiser has recently re-aligned their confusing array of products into three models, so I will start with those. The classic choice here is the Sennheiser HD-25 Plus (€185) which you will commonly see on film sets and used by field recordists. This model replaces the HD 25-II, HD 25-1-II (which I own), HD 25-C-II, HD 25-13-II, and HD-25 Aluminium. This is a closed, supra-aural design with split headband and a single-sided cable. One of the earcups can rotate, though this is fairly stiff on my unit. The package includes two cables (one coiled), two sets of earpads, and a travel pouch. These cans will effectively last forever. But they are not comfortable for eyeglass wearers. I can tolerate two to three hours of use. The price we pay for a good recording! The Sennheiser HD-25 (€145) is the successor to the HD-25-1-II Basic Edition. As near as I can tell it's identical to the Pro model but doesn't include any of the extra items. You may as well save the money, because the earpads are cheap to buy separately, when you need them. The Sennheiser HD-25 70th Anniversary version (€111) is part of a year-long campaign at Thomann that includes branded products at a discount. This limited release is identical to the normal model except it defaults to neon blue pads. But black earpads are also included. So this is the deal of the decade. The final contemporary model is the Sennheiser HD-25 Light. But this has a less robust headband and double-sided cable, so ignore. Audio-Technica ATH-M20x (€57) are the cheapest cans that are recommended elsewhere. They are closed and circumaural, with a single-sided cable. The cups rotate so they are useful for DJs. I've never used them and sincerely doubt they will stand up to abuse on the road like the HD-25 models do. Conclusion Good cans are not expensive compared with other consumer items. In fact, considering their lifespan, they are a bargain. If you have not experienced high-quality headphones, you are in for a treat.
Günther Berkus and I
It would be presumptuous for me to call Günther Berkus a friend, but he was sometimes a collaborator (in live improvisations) and our paths crossed regularly. On meeting we'd talked passionately about various music technologies. Indeed, for several years our techniques ran in parallel, for example our explorations of Max/MSP. When Berkus (as he preferred to be called) began work using the voice of W.S. Burroughs (released in 2014 as Pay Back Your Stolen Colours), I referred back to my own generative exercises using Burroughs texts, conducted in the nineties. And by coincidence I was simultaneously revisiting the voice as sonic material for The Absence of Baudrillard. In such ways our interests threaded. Berkus at Sonic Vigil 8, St. Anne's Church, Shandon, Cork, 3 May 2014 He and I both posted to Soundcloud, Berkus using the moniker Cork City Gamelan. I was always happy to see his encouraging comments on my own tracks. Indeed, since his passing I've seen less reason to use that platform, an effect I only just noticed while writing this tribute. Berkus maintained an active blog, The Cork City Gamelon (great concept!). This contains fifty posts, written between June 2011 and September 2015. He used this platform to promote his musical activities, but I propose that this was secondary to two other aims. First, to share sonic components that others could use, as an echo of his own ongoing collaborations. Second, to encourage those with diabilities to make music, empowered by technology. The first goal is explicit on the Disclaimer page. This contains a Creative Commons license for all samples on the website, alongside a statement that allows readers to "freely use them in your own work" (so long as credit is maintained). The second goal is encompassed by the statement "I have made it a major concern of mine to encourage and promote music making for people with disabilities." This was inspired by his discovery of the music of Evelyn Glennie, and his subsequent conversation with her. Berkus at Days On End Festival, TACTIC Space, Cork, 11-12 February 2012 I was happy to see Berkus contribute to the convocations of the Irish Science, Sound and Technology Association (ISSTA). My interest was not just as a board member... I always loved to hear what he would do next. At the ISSTA 2017 gathering in Dundalk he collaborated with fellow improviser Alison "Little" Forbes on the installation Evolution. An excerpt was mastered for Tides: An ISSTA Anthology (2021) and the anthology was dedicated to his memory. Several times Berkus and I shared in group improvisations, from whence the photos here are sourced. He was most expert at playing the Waterphone. In homage, I'm now embarking on a series of pieces using these sounds as source material. I'll be using the Monome Norns, a brand new piece of hardware (to me, anyway) that packages a Raspberry Pi with audio interface and a standardised interface. A loyal community creates scripts in Lua code that leverage the SuperCollider audio engine. Berkus would approve of such a mashup of community culture and cutting-edge tech, I am sure. Gunther lived with multiple sclerosis (MS) for decades and died on 11 September 2020 at age 69. This Saturday, 7 September 2024, a group of friends and associates will gather to commemorate his life. Join Danny Mc Carthy, Tony Langlois, Little, Colm Clarken, Roger Gregg, and myself at 8pm at Plugd Records in Cork. The 10 Euro door goes to MS Ireland. If you can't attend, consider a donation anyway. As Gunther was fond of posting a Drone of the Week, I will do likewise. Here's a brand new piece, created as a study for Saturday's performance. It's on Soundcloud... naturally. Robin Parmar
Comparing Vintage 28mm Lenses: Revisited
Three months ago I compared five vintage 28mm lenses. Based on those results I've obtained one new lens and dug up an old M42 from my archives. Here are the lenses in today's comparison, with their official designations: smc PENTAX 1:2 28mm smc PENTAX 1:3.5/28 SMC PENTAX-A 28mm f/2.8 Vivitar Series 1 28mm 1:1.9 VMC Auto Wide Angle Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2.8 Why do I keep doing these comparisons? Mostly for fun and to make up my own mind about what to take out for a shoot. I also realise that few photographers have access to my distinctive collection. My comparisons might benefit your own purchase decisions. The salient features of each lens are summarised in the following table. For completeness I've included two lenses from the previous test. year aperture length (mm) mass (g) filter (mm) focus (cm) optics mount Pentax-K 28/2 1976 2.0 69 425 52 30 9 in 8 K Pentax-K 28/3.5 1976 3.5 47 260 52 30 8 in 7 K Pentax-A 28/2.8 1984 2.8 37 170 49 30 8 in 7 K Vivitar 28/1.9 1978 1.9 62 335 58 30 9 in 8 M42 Distagon 28/2.8 1978 2.8 51 280 55 25 7 in 7 C-Y Kino Precision 28/2 1981 2.0 51 270 55 30 ? K Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus 1983 2.0 50 280 49 23 8 in 7 K Please read the previous article for details on the first three lenses. Two lenses are new for this test. The Pentax-K 28/3.5 was recently reviewed on this blog, alongside many sample images. I'll add another below. Remember that compressed images viewed online always appear softer than they should. You can click each image for a full-sized version. fern hill The second addition is the Vivitar Series 1 (Vivitar Bestiary entry), manufactured by Tokina to high standards. Physically it's quite a monster, almost as big as the Pentax-K 28/2. Like that lens it includes a floating element for improved near field performance. Today's test was conducted using the Panasonic Lumix S5 with K&F adapters for each mount. A tripod with two second timer was used, so IBIS was turned off. The ISO was 800 and distance from bookshelf 70cm. It can be difficult ascertaining that the camera is oriented parallel to the subject, but I used a liquid level to assist. For each lens I used a range of apertures from maximum to F8 in single stops. While there may be further optical improvements after F8, I find that most lenses will render very similarly in that regime. Development was in Affinity Photo using my usual RAW defaults, which do apply some standardised adjustments. Comparing results Toggling between the full frame images (not included here) a few observations can be made. The Pentax-K F2 and Vivitar F1.9 have slightly less field of view than the other lenses. Pentax-K F3.5 has significant vignetting wide which is noticeable until F8. The amount wide open is similar to the Pentax-K F2 which is of course significantly faster. The Pentax-A F2.8 and Distagon have less vignetting. The worst performer wide is the Vivitar F1.9 though it clears at F5.6. Vignetting may not be seen as a terrible flaw, since post-production correction is easy. However on the Pentax-K F3.5 it is enough to darken the entire image. The Pentax-K F3.5 has the least distortion, near zero in fact. The Carl Zeiss Distagon is almost as fine, followed by the Vivitar and the remainder of the Pentax lenses, which do bow a bit in the middle of the horizontal extent. (I guess about 1%.) This distortion might not always be noticeable, but can be corrected in post where important.We now turn attention to the crops. There are three of these, assembled below. Two sequences were shot with the centre of the image (word "Sound") in focus. The first crop is from the centre, the second from the top-right corner. centre focus, centre crop centre focus, corner cropThe third crop was taken by focusing to the right side of the image, as close to the edge as possible (word "Sonic"). This test will indicate the absolute performance at the edges, without the effects of field curvature. edge focus, edge crop Here we discover just how remarkable the "Hollywood" Pentax-K F2 is. Even wide open, it produces an entirely useful image, especially when focused near the centre of the frame. Contrast is good and sharpness sufficient. Colours are slightly muted but that could look nice for portraiture. Stopping down to F2.8 tidies up the rendering with increased contrast, saturation, and sharpness. Notice that the corner crop is out of focus and lacking until F8. But if we focus on the edge it is already decent at F2.8. This is indicative of significant field curvature... but this is not the problem it might first appear. In fact, the combination of a wide aperture (sharp in centre) with a field curvature that further isolates the subject can produce amazing images. Especially near the close focus distance, backgrounds will be rendered in a lovely smooth bokeh while subjects pop.I have a number of examples in my previous article. But here's one more. two resting catsIf we compare the Pentax-K F3.5 wide open to the Hollywood at F4 we discover something remarkable. This lens gives up little in image quality. And since we have already determined it to have the least distortion of the bunch, it's perhaps the better choice for any image where a blurred background is not the priority. However this lens also has field curvature. In practical use I have not noticed this effect to be as bad as demonstrated here, though the lens certainly likes to be stopped down. This difference is likely due to the fact that I typically use this as a landscape lens. I don't focus as close as 70cm but instead at a distance of many meters. The Pentax-A F2.8 is a compact build that equals the performance of the previous two lenses. I honestly can't distinguish the centre performance at F2.8 from the Hollywood. But the corner crop is a revelation. By F4 it's already usable and at F8 the image is as good as the centre of the frame! This is by far the best result here, if we judge the entire frame. The fast Vivitar F1.9 has made significant sacrifices in quality to attain that aperture. Wide open the image has the typical haze of uncorrected aberrations. Some people like to use this for effect but I have never been in that camp. Quality improves stopped down to F2.8 but only in the centre. The edges remain dark and messy throughout the aperture range tested. The Vivitar has significant light transmission loss due to the accumulated effect of aberrations. Finally, the Carl Zeiss Distagon F2.8. This did poorly in my last test and I wanted to rule out user error. In this retest the centre the image is fine but the corners are still not usable at F8. Even when focused on the edge there is nothing special about the performance. While this is not a bad lens it cannot compare to Pentax optics. Conclusions So, which lens should you buy if you are interested in the 28mm field of view? Back when I was shooting on an APS-C sensor I got good results from various Vivitar lenses, including the two models tested in my last report. But these do not hold up on a full-frame sensor. There are certainly many other brands that have produced good wide angle lenses for film camera. But I can honestly say that I have little interest in Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. after using Pentax glass. This is not to claim that those products are any worse. Only that I cannot see them being any better. Pentax lenses have a nice feeling in the hand and hold up very well over the decades since they were made. The aperture blades stay snappy and lubricants don't dry up. These are important practical factors when buying lenses that might be 50 years old. For the ultimate in subject isolation and bokeh (two aspects not tested here), the Hollywood lens (whether the Carl Zeiss Distagon or Pentax-K varieties) cannot be beaten. It is renowned among stills photographers and film-makers alike, so you'll be paying circa €1300. Is that lens too big and expensive for you? For a fraction of the price (around €100) the Pentax-K F3.5 performs very well and still has wonderful haptics. But the absolute star of the show is rather unexpected. The lowly Pentax-A F2.8 has excellent performance to the edges and at F8 is already wonderful for landscapes. Here's an image wide open that demonstrates that the bokeh is not bad at all. obstacle no. 1 You can find this lens for €100 at online prices or perhaps less at your local junk shop. Note that the prior Pentax-M F2.8 has identical optics and works the same as the A on a mirrorless camera. (The automatic aperture coupling is only relevant to Pentax SLRs.) So put that model on your radar as well. Finally, the Carl Zeiss Distagon F2.8 is not to be ignored. If you already have a commitment to Contax lenses, this is an obvious choice. Indeed, I find the usability of this line to be second to none, ranking Pentax and Leica in second place. But in comparison to my other Contax Zeiss lenses (Planar 50, Planar 100, Sonnar 85) the Distagon 28mm F2.8 is underwhelming. I recognise that shooting a bookshelf is boring and cannot demonstrate every quality of a lens. Neither is it scientifically rigorous. For me this formal exercise is an adjunct to the many shots I've taken with these lenses. The test confirms some of my impressions while revealing a few surprises. Can I say this is my last 28mm comparison? I do think so. But... never say never!Revised 14 August for better language and flow. More images added.
Pentax-K 28mm F3.5 under review
I didn't exactly need another 28mm lens. If you doubt that statement you can read my previous comparison of this focal length, or jog over to the Great Vivitar 28mm Bestiary. Yep, I own dozens. Nonetheless, here I am with my latest purchase, the "smc PENTAX 1:3.5/28" (to give the formal name). In this article I will provide an overview of the lens and present some photographs. As you may know by now, the so-called "K" series of Pentax lenses was the debut line produced for their SLRs. These cameras used the bayonet K-mount, replacing the universal M42 screw mount used by earlier Spotmatics and Takumar lenses. This line is known for sold metal builds, longevity, and excellent handling (including half-click aperture stops). They work very well on today's mirrorless digital cameras. Pentax introduced two 28mm lenses in 1976. The famous "SMC PENTAX 1:2/28" was co-designed with Zeiss, who released their own version under the Distagon moniker. The "Hollywood" is a large and heavy beast (69mm long and 425g) with excellent close-focus (30cm) and a 9 element in 8 group optical design. This legendary lens sells for around €1000 if you are lucky enough to find one. By contrast the "smc PENTAX 1:3.5/28" is a more reasonable size (47mm long and 260g), though still larger than alternatives in this focal length. It has the same 30cm close focus but is not corrected for that distance. The design is 8 elements in 7 groups which is more glass than most 28mm optics. The most apparent difference is that it is a stop and a half slower. It's not the most plentiful lens, but still easy enough to find. The Pentax-K 28mm F3.5 has a stellar reputation. You can read many reviews at Pentax Forums, the blog by Phillip Reeve, and other sources. In David Hancock's video it ranks higher than alternatives from Canon, Konica, Minolta, Nikon, and Olympus. Those who know Pentax cannot be surprised by this conclusion. My experience concurs exactly with previous findings. This lens has no CA or other visible aberrations. The image is crisp with great colours and high contrast. In absolute terms the sharpness of a vintage lens can be exceeded by today's computer-aided designs. But you don't buy a vintage lens for images that will cut your eyeballs. You buy them for unsurpassed handling, (more than) sufficient acuity, and character. At f/8 this lens is as sharp as needed; we are not compromising by any practical measure. The Pentax-K 28mm F3.5 demonstrates field curvature, in that the corners of the frame are focused in front of the center. This is only a problem if you are photographing a perfectly flat surface without stopping down. Don't do that! Instead, use this characteristic creatively to help isolate a central subject. The bokeh is smooth and lovely. Though the faster F2 lens has a natural advantage in rendering a shallower depth-of-field, this model acquits itself well. The lens has high vignetting at f/3.5. This is easily corrected in software. Or use it to your advantage (as above). Vignetting is effectively gone by f/8. Distortion is absent. I happened to take a photo of a tiled grid and was amazed at the results! After correcting for perspective I don't see any notable deviations from straight lines. This might be the most corrected wide angle I own. Though I have yet to do a formal comparison with the remainder of my stable, in daily use this lens blows my mind. Is this the best wide angle lens from the vintage era? What I can say is that it's perfect for landscapes shot at f/8 or f/11. If you have a thousand clams and need incredible subject isolation in a wide angle then consider the Hollywood. If you have about €150 but don't wish to compromise on quality, get this instead. Photos were shot on a Panasonic Lumix S5 with my usual processing in Affinity Photo. These are not straight-out-of-camera. The images here are too small to properly demonstrate this lens. Instead, check out my images on Flickr.