APO Lenses vs "Regular" Lenses?

Its an interesting concept;).

Photographers have been debating photographic lenses since the 1850s as evidenced by articles and correspondence in the early photographic press. I use one or two current SOTA lenses but also lenses which date back as far as the 1860s. The 'real' test of their attributes is whether they deliver the images we require from them. Labels are all too often too poorly defined to make them as relevant as we might like. My undergraduate project involved a comparison of cascaded MTF data and actual prints from two different photographic systems. Despite one being from a highly prestigious maker, and having a somewhat higher final MTF curve, the print results were actually indistinguishable, even by image conscious viewers. Since then I have taken care to use decent equipment but rarely obsess over needing 'the latest and best'.

Is it published or can you send it to me? I’m interested.

One thing I like about good lenses is that they look the same until you use them for their best strengths. Most lenses, even modern ones, do poorly when you stress them. Many handle light directly onto the front element poorly. Film lenses weren’t designed to handle reflections from the light detecting surface; film is matte, but sensors are shiny. Film also has a little depth, and sensors do not, and aberrations always are worse away from the field; thus exaggerates aberrations where there is field curvature.

The f1 Noctilux doesn’t flare like this: the Beauty of LIGHT :Photos on film. That’s interesting.

Is it published or can you send it to me? I’m interested.
I'm not sure that I have retained a copy as it was a long time ago!

But I think that you are right about the 'other' advances such as better flare suppression and minimisation of internal reflections, things that we tend to take for granted until they become intrusive. As ever it's in adverse conditions when modern lenses show just how good they are. I'm simply not convinced that ever more resolution is a goal which needs to be attained. Playing to individual lens strengths is always worthwhile and their weaknesses can be utilised very effectively too.
Last edited by a moderator:
The article is written as Satire to make fun of people writing about classic lenses having unique properties. The author just does not get it. Lenses can render differently, based on their optical prescription. If you cannot understand that- no hope for writing about lenses. There is much more to optics than what is exactly in focus at the image plane. Humorous that he cites AF-D lenses as being old. The AF-D Nikkor 28~105 is one of my newer Nikon lenses, and one of my favorites. "Technically" the AF-Micro-Nikkor 70~180 is better. I should use it more, but the 28~105 is a Swiss Army Knife for actual use.

"Never before we were faced with so many confusing lens elements that require an optical dictionary to make any sense out of them: aspherical, low-dispersion, extra low-dispersion, super low-dispersion, high-refractive index, fluorite, etc – you name it! "

Lenses using these optical components have been around for more than 50 years. Most made their way into use during the 1950s.

These two were made 50 years apart. The one on the Right is corrected for Four wavelengths, rather than "only" three. It also cost more in 1970 than the one on the Left cost now.

Last edited:
I've read that "maybe" 40 of the Pentax lenses survive today. It renders beautifully on Film.

"Flourite" "Super-Low Dispersion"... This lens is corrected for UV through Infrared. I am the first person to use it for Photography. It was used in a Spectrascope made almost 50 years ago. I bought an m42 adapter to use it on Z-Mount recently, will try it out on it. I have a lot of lenses.
Last edited:
I was curious and begged ... My favorite dealer loaned me one of the Summicron-M 50 APO lenses to test against my standard, current series Summicron-M 50. The APO trounced the standard hands down, no question about it, in any technical comparison. Only bad thing is that I simply cannot or will not spend that kind of money for another 50mm lens. And there's nothing wrong with the photos my standard Summicron-M 50 lens makes ... They're just not at the same level of technical perfection that the APO lens makes.

And my 1972 Summilux 35m f/1.4 is full of weird aberrations, and because of them makes some of the most beautiful photos of any 35mm lens I've owned.

Technical perfection is only rarely the arbiter between a good photograph and a so-so photograph. So ... You pays your money, you takes your choices. I'm happy with the lenses I have: they're paid for, and they work well for me. :)

I have a lens that is Technically Perfect. The optics preserve the Phase of the Light entering the lens, the image is formed with all point of light taking the same time to enter and exit the lens. The Inconel used for the barrel was formulated to match the coefficient of thermal expansion of the optics to operate over temperature. Bernie designed it for use in an Optical Computer.

I miss Bernie.

Some day I need to hack it onto a camera and take a picture using it. Cost: $40K in the 1980s.
Horses for courses...

Years ago when Leica sold lenses and bodies with cosmetic flaws at steep discount, I traded a 50 Summicron and other glass for an APO.
Really no comparison; the APO is as high resolving at ƒ/2 as it is at ƒ/8. To me, the 'character' obtained at the widest apertures, from blistering center resolution and contrast matched with the neutral defocus and lower contrast of the OOF areas, can be sublime.