APO Lenses vs "Regular" Lenses?

K

ktmrider

Well-known
Local time
8:58 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,349
So with both Leitz and Voigtlander producing APO lenses in both 35 and 50 mm (and perhaps others), my question is are they worth switching. I shoot both digital and film and own a couple film M's and an MP240.

My favorite focal lengths are 35 and 50 (depends on which way the wind is blowing). In 35 I have the Zeiss 35f2.8 C Biogon and the first version of the 35f1.2 Nokton while in 50 I have the latest Summicron and the 50f1.2 Nokton. I have been happy with the results with each of the lenses changing lenses primarily based on size (travel) or the need for speed.

I don't really plan on updating to an APO but I wonder if I am missing something. And if I did plan on going with an APO, it would be from Voightlander. If anything I will be shooting more film and don't really plan on updating my digital system. My next trip will involve a 3f with 50 collapsible Summicron and a Fuji X100F.

Am looking for opinions on switching to APO lenses for what seems to me to be a marginal increase in lens performance.
 
But is the minuscule increase worth the money? We survived very well until now without most lenses being APO if I am correct.
 
ktmrider said:
But is the minuscule increase worth the money? We survived very well until now without most lenses being APO if I am correct.
Click to expand...

Isn't minuscule. Chromatic aberrations are better controlled or extinguished altogether. Subject edges are sharper because the 3 wavelengths converge at the same focal plane. Creates a different effect and acutance as a result.

They've been around for a long time but were costly.
Voigtländer had them in the 1950's (IIRC, large format lenses). Enlarger lenses had them as well. The Leica R 180 Telyt APO, created for the US Navy in the early 1970's, became commercially available later in the decade, followed by R macro & several telephoto lenses in the 1990's utilizing the correction (90AA M in '98). Cosina Voigtländer introduced its series of a macro and telephoto APOs for SLRs around 2002-2005, followed by LTM short teles with APO correction. These types of lenses are typically accompanied by (much) higher resolving optics as well, and so you get far more than color correction.

In fact, the aforementioned 180 Telyt remains to this day one of the highest resolving, best-corrected telephoto lenses 45 years on.
 
You'll not notice any significant difference, if any, on B&W (film or digital). But you'll really appreciate the apochromatic correction on your color images - especially digital - compared to most non-apo lenses.

However, as my first post suggests, if you're already satisfied with your images then stick with what you have. You already own [arguably] two of the best 50mm lenses ever produced for 35mm format.
 
Bill Blackwell said:
You'll not notice any significant difference, if any, on B&W (film or digital). But you'll really appreciate the apochromatic correction on your color images - especially digital - compared to most non-apo lenses.

However, as my first post suggests, if you're already satisfied with your images then stick with what you have. You already own [arguably] two of the best 50mm lenses ever produced for 35mm format.
Click to expand...

You can fix transverse chromatic aberrations in software in colour images. You cannot in monochrome. The sharpness advantages are much more obvious in monochrome. Axial chromatic aberration plays havoc with both systems.

If your technique is good, you will notice the difference in sharpness and colour reproduction unless you are really unobservant. The additional advantage with these modern lenses is better transmission, decreased flare and designs that provide better edge-to-edge sharpness and control of spherical aberration, which minimises focus shift, than older lenses. And they are close to apochromatic across the visible spectrum, unlike a lot of older ‘apo’ lenses that are technically apochromatic at three defined wavelengths and one focal distance but have aberrations away from those wavelengths and distance. The Leica 90 AA is a classic in this regard.

The real trap is that people think these lenses will make their photos better. Additional sharpness and colour reproduction won’t make your photos better on their own unless you are a scientific or technical photographer.

Marty
 
Kinoptic made apochomats for a long time as did Kern (the Switar), however, the nomenclature is not policed, so marketing people may feel a need to follow fashions despite their wares being less aberration free than the real APOs.

Since all lens constructions have to make compromises the best advice is to try whether the nomenclatiure delivers what you need.

p.
 
ph. said:
Kinoptic made apochomats for a long time as did Kern (the Switar), however, the nomenclature is not policed, so marketing people may feel a need to follow fashions despite their wares being less aberration free than the real APOs.

Since all lens constructions have to make compromises the best advice is to try whether the nomenclatiure delivers what you need.

p.
Click to expand...

P.

Good point. I not only own the APO 35Cron-L, but also the 50 Lux-L.

In other forums some argue that the 50 Lux-L is so corrected that it is also an APO, and that Leica just did not use APO in this case for marketing.

Interesting to note in the SL-SL2 Forum how many people sold their 50 Lux-L to buy an APO 50 Cron-L.

So for the landscape guys they went with the 50 Cron for size as well as being a bit more corrected/perfect; while the portrait folk favored the 50 Lux. Of course some shooters required or wanted F1.4.

One poster though summed it up by saying he is keeping both because he lets his clients decide which they favor.

Know that I own both a SL and a SL2, but the SL2 with 47.3 MP with the native glass is "crazy-good."

Cal
 
APO lenses are much more important for B&W film and Monochrome cameras. If you use a deep yellow, orange, or red filter routinely with a lens on a monochrome camera or B&W film, there will be negligible focus shift compared to most achromats. If you are not using a color filter- there will be a difference on sharpness.

Classic Leica lenses have as much focus shift due to chromatic aberration as they do for spherical aberration.

leica.jpg


I end up optimizing some of my lenses for use on the M Monochrom with an Orange filter by increasing shim thickness. Not required for the APO-Lanthar.
 
This is very interesting. I have a Summilux 50mm f/1.4 type 1 from 1959 that is finished in black paint. I have the same lens in chrome. The black lens is at full aperture much sharper without a filter than the chrome one. Could it be that the black lens is more corrected for chromatic and spherical aberrations, with other words, could it be an APO lens? If so, why are not all the Summiluxes and Noctiluxes corrected in that way? The color of the coating of the black lens is completely different from that of the chrome lens.


gelatine silver print (summilux 50mm f1.4 v1 no.1703963) leica mp. At full aperture.

Erik.

50402849457_4440d87fdd_b.jpg
 
A really good achromat can perform as well as an APO lens. It's not just if two colors or three colors have a zero-crossing, it's also the walk-off from the zero crossing. One quick metric- look for the IR focus index on a lens. Several of my Leica lenses- the IR mark is at the F2 DOF indicator. Other lenses, closer to F5.6 and F8.
 
I think the "is it worth it" questions are always tough to answer. If I say "no" I am assuming that the gains in IQ aren't worth it to you. If I say "yes" I am assuming that the price is one you can bear. None of us has that data -- we can only report on what kind of decisions we make for ourselves. I don't actually care what a lens is called. I care what kind of images it produces. The recent C/V offerings have my interest piqued based on the images I have seen on my computer screen. I long ago gave up asking whether I "need" another 50 or 35 mm lens. The answer is always "yes," (which means in my case, that the answer is never actually "yes").

If a new lens comes out, and you like how it renders, buy it. Don't go without food or shelter, or skimp on your kids. But buy it. I have honestly never regretted the purchase of any functional lens. This is as true for a $50 Russian copy of an Elmarit and for the Mega-K $ Leica Summicron. I won't be getting the new $8K Leica. . . because that would cause me to go without shelter when my wife kicks me out of the house as a result of the purchase. But as homeless middle-aged divorcees aren't Leica's target market, I think everyone's needs are getting met on that one.
 
The funny thing about the thread’s title is that APO is the latest trend in making “regular” lenses. By “regular,” I mean mainstream optical design that tries to maximize performance and produce ever “better” image quality. In contrast with lenses that “have character,” as if APO lenses from the past weren’t famous for having character.
 
APO refers to one characteristic of a lens: the corrections is for three individual wavelengths of in the spectrum to come into focus at the same plane. Achromats correct for two wavelengths. Some special optics might choose wavelengths in close proximity, others have wavelengths outside the visible range.





Like this one, from about 50 years ago. Astigmatism, spherical aberration, field curvature, Distortion, vignetting- not addressed by "APO". APO is all about wavelengths coming into focus in the same plane.
 
ktmrider said:
So with both Leitz and Voigtlander producing APO lenses in both 35 and 50 mm (and perhaps others), my question is are they worth switching. I shoot both digital and film and own a couple film M's and an MP240.

My favorite focal lengths are 35 and 50 (depends on which way the wind is blowing). In 35 I have the Zeiss 35f2.8 C Biogon and the first version of the 35f1.2 Nokton while in 50 I have the latest Summicron and the 50f1.2 Nokton. I have been happy with the results with each of the lenses changing lenses primarily based on size (travel) or the need for speed.

I don't really plan on updating to an APO but I wonder if I am missing something. And if I did plan on going with an APO, it would be from Voightlander. If anything I will be shooting more film and don't really plan on updating my digital system. My next trip will involve a 3f with 50 collapsible Summicron and a Fuji X100F.

Am looking for opinions on switching to APO lenses for what seems to me to be a marginal increase in lens performance.
Click to expand...

Not to sidetrack the discussion but how do you like the C biogon 35mm on film? I also have the 35f1.2 Nokton ver 1 and have been looking for a small modern 35mm. I love the character of the nokton but sometimes I just want a smaller lens :)
 
stompyq said:
Not to sidetrack the discussion but how do you like the C biogon 35mm on film? I also have the 35f1.2 Nokton ver 1 and have been looking for a small modern 35mm. I love the character of the nokton but sometimes I just want a smaller lens :)
Click to expand...

I love the C Biogon. If you can live with the f:2.8 maximum aperture, it is tiny and sharp, sharp, sharp. Just a fantastic lens.
 
I've yet to see a good photograph ruined by chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.

And I've yet to see a bad photograph made better by the fact that it shows no signs of chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
I've yet to see a good photograph ruined by chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.

And I've yet to see a bad photograph made better by the fact that it shows no signs of chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.
Click to expand...

haha, too funny, enjoyed your Thoughts....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top