View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:15 am Post subject: Double Gauss Designs |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
I have posted this as a separate thread to make it easier to find in any future searches. Here are three charts of double gauss designs. You will need to click on the images to get one at a size that you can read.
_________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7795 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
What we need now is a simple explanation of this type of lens design so that the simple folk, like me, can understand the basics of the design and the benefits, downfalls etc. I guess I'm not alone in hearing and reading about the different designs and not fully understanding and appreciating the differences, and more importantly the difference it makes when I press the button.
But remember ------ 'simple' _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
In simple terms it's the best design for a normal lens that can be hand calculated. The basic concept is clearly seen in the first lens here (Kodak Ektar): two convex lenses separated by air followed by their mirror image. The design is symmetric. The key advantage of design is that it allows good correction of various aberrations, allowing for very fast lenses. The disadvantage is that double-Gauss have a lot of glass-air surfaces, so require coating.
The designs that were popular before double Gauss: Tessar and Sonnar have fewer glass-air surfaces and can function uncoated. However, they have more aberrations, will be noticably weaker away from the center than double Gauss, but will have better contrast given the same coating. In practice, one might prefer Sonnars for portrait lenses as uncorrected spherical aberrations will result in smoother rendering. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Thanks for the diagrams. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Fascinating
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RAART
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 Posts: 497 Location: Oakville, ON, Canada
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
RAART wrote:
Captivating!
_________________
Camera: Pentax K3
FOR SALE:
Do you have Pentax-A or F or FA primes and like to trade?
Here is the list what I have to trade/sale:
Primes: - Kiron 28mm f2 (C/Y); Vivitar 28mm f2.5 Auto (FD); Minolta MD 50mm f2 (incl. adapter to m4/3); Miranda Auto 35mm f2.8 EC (incl. adapter to m4/3); Miranda Auto 135mm f2.8 EC (incl. adapter to m4/3);
Zoom Lenses:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1655 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
.. Hears the pokemon theme song.. Got a catch em all, double gause! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Very interesting but doesn't explain why some lenses are sharper\better than others (ignoring misuse or bad copy or type of glass)..e.g why is the Minolta PG 50mm f1.4 sharper than the Minolta PF 58mm f1.4 and similar comparisons. Or why everyone praises the RE Topcor 58mm f1.4 but ignores the Minolta PF 58mm f1.4 manufactured roughly at the same time......is the answer simply:- Minolta are inferior compared to Topcon in turning out lenses, so pick your own examples and wonder why _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
casualcollector
Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 749 Location: Spaced out on Florida's Space Coast
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
casualcollector wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
Very interesting but doesn't explain why some lenses are sharper\better than others |
Different goals on the designer's part. Different capabilities of the manufacturer. Economic considerations (selling price). Different quality standards of makers. Sample variation. Differing tastes of user.
I have an issue of Camera 35 Magazine from 1971. The Canon F-1, Pentax Spotmatic F and Mamiya/Sekor Auto XTL were tested with their f-1.4 standard lenses. I believe this was a test chart on film test. The Canon had the best numbers with Pentax and Mamiya falling in behind. Today it seems the Pentax Super Takumar is the most highly praised and desirable of the group, judged by the comments of this forum. _________________ In Search Of "R" Serial Soligors
Found: 135/2.8 #R407660, 200/4 #R405526, 300/5.5 #R411127 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mos6502
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mos6502 wrote:
One lens up there is a tessar variant, not a double guass, can you spot it?
casualcollector wrote: |
Excalibur wrote: |
Very interesting but doesn't explain why some lenses are sharper\better than others |
Different goals on the designer's part. Different capabilities of the manufacturer. Economic considerations (selling price). Different quality standards of makers. Sample variation. Differing tastes of user.
I have an issue of Camera 35 Magazine from 1971. The Canon F-1, Pentax Spotmatic F and Mamiya/Sekor Auto XTL were tested with their f-1.4 standard lenses. I believe this was a test chart on film test. The Canon had the best numbers with Pentax and Mamiya falling in behind. Today it seems the Pentax Super Takumar is the most highly praised and desirable of the group, judged by the comments of this forum. |
One thing is that designers had to work around each other presumably, some designers were just better than others, or had other goals (ie. speed vs. sharpness, or aberrations vs. distortion etc.) so lenses of similar design perform differently, and as pointed out constraints of selling price, materials, etc. also make differences.
Lenses which are in "convenient" mounts like M42 will be more popular these days than lenses in esoteric mounts, which pretty much explains why the Takumars are more popular than other lenses which are as good or better but only available in other mounts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 466 Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
Woodrim very nice work !!!!!
You could also add the Fujinon 55 f1.8 and use the Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f1.8 diagram since it is the same at 98%
Also the Yashica line of 50mm lenses is also in the same category... _________________ Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
To me, the most interesting thing was to find the Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 Macro there; one of my favorite and treasured lenses. Who were Opcon? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
casualcollector wrote: |
Today it seems the Pentax Super Takumar is the most highly praised and desirable of the group, judged by the comments of this forum. |
...........or until recently (e.g Nex) most Digital users couldn't use old Canon FD lenses (well they could but it was inconvenient and with some problems) so less comments made _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1655 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
A Tessar.... Your eyes are doing better then mine, we need 3 systems, er groups, and fourish elements?
Mos6502 wrote: |
One lens up there is a tessar variant, not a double guass, can you spot it?
casualcollector wrote: |
Excalibur wrote: |
Very interesting but doesn't explain why some lenses are sharper\better than others |
Different goals on the designer's part. Different capabilities of the manufacturer. Economic considerations (selling price). Different quality standards of makers. Sample variation. Differing tastes of user.
I have an issue of Camera 35 Magazine from 1971. The Canon F-1, Pentax Spotmatic F and Mamiya/Sekor Auto XTL were tested with their f-1.4 standard lenses. I believe this was a test chart on film test. The Canon had the best numbers with Pentax and Mamiya falling in behind. Today it seems the Pentax Super Takumar is the most highly praised and desirable of the group, judged by the comments of this forum. |
One thing is that designers had to work around each other presumably, some designers were just better than others, or had other goals (ie. speed vs. sharpness, or aberrations vs. distortion etc.) so lenses of similar design perform differently, and as pointed out constraints of selling price, materials, etc. also make differences.
Lenses which are in "convenient" mounts like M42 will be more popular these days than lenses in esoteric mounts, which pretty much explains why the Takumars are more popular than other lenses which are as good or better but only available in other mounts. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
skida
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 Posts: 1826 Location: North East England
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
skida wrote:
I have to admit doing a search on "Double-Gauss"
Clever bloke, that Carl Friedrich Gauss: when he wasn't playing with magnets he was designing telescope lenses! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mos6502
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mos6502 wrote:
tromboads wrote: |
A Tessar.... Your eyes are doing better then mine, we need 3 systems, er groups, and fourish elements?
Mos6502 wrote: |
One lens up there is a tessar variant, not a double guass, can you spot it?
casualcollector wrote: |
Excalibur wrote: |
Very interesting but doesn't explain why some lenses are sharper\better than others |
Different goals on the designer's part. Different capabilities of the manufacturer. Economic considerations (selling price). Different quality standards of makers. Sample variation. Differing tastes of user.
I have an issue of Camera 35 Magazine from 1971. The Canon F-1, Pentax Spotmatic F and Mamiya/Sekor Auto XTL were tested with their f-1.4 standard lenses. I believe this was a test chart on film test. The Canon had the best numbers with Pentax and Mamiya falling in behind. Today it seems the Pentax Super Takumar is the most highly praised and desirable of the group, judged by the comments of this forum. |
One thing is that designers had to work around each other presumably, some designers were just better than others, or had other goals (ie. speed vs. sharpness, or aberrations vs. distortion etc.) so lenses of similar design perform differently, and as pointed out constraints of selling price, materials, etc. also make differences.
Lenses which are in "convenient" mounts like M42 will be more popular these days than lenses in esoteric mounts, which pretty much explains why the Takumars are more popular than other lenses which are as good or better but only available in other mounts. |
|
In this case it has five elements. The maximum aperture is another give away. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Ufff, found it, but had to go through the list a couple of times. Pentax lens. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
56 DIN
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 Posts: 1656 Location: Germany Erbach /ODW
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
56 DIN wrote:
thanks a lot _________________ Thomas
NEX & manual lenses
Nikon & manual lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JohnBar
Joined: 21 Jun 2012 Posts: 581 Location: Liverpool
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JohnBar wrote:
Schneider have produced a number of DG variations which do not appear in those charts, Xenon, Xenar etc _________________ Rectilux 3FF Series single focus anamorphic attachments
http://www.transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/rectilux-3ff.html
Regular News on https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rectilux/704770636267200 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MacTak
Joined: 15 Jun 2011 Posts: 108
|
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MacTak wrote:
Forgive me for dredging up an old thread, but I thought this would be the perfect thread to make some mention (and hopefully get a little discussion) of the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens announced today. For it features a very strange and (I think) novel design: the first quadruple-Gauss lens!?
Let's start with the rear half of the lens, which would itself be a relatively expected design for a fast 50--a Biotar/Xenon type, though one with a particularly enhanced rear group (two elements in the rear has been done on some fast 50mm, but here one of those elements is turned into a doublet and the other is aspherical). This rear half is much the same as the entire prior Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG EX lens (including that enhanced rear group with doublet + aspherical), except that lens split the front doublet (Ultron-type). But then there is also the whole front part of the lens design, and guess what, it clearly looks like another double-Gauss feature (stripped of any extra elements besides the opposed Gaussian elements themselves). In this case the front group remains split, and the rear group, instead of being the usual doublet (or split), has been made into a triplet! Like I said, pretty crazy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst
Joined: 04 Jul 2011 Posts: 504 Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
|
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
To me, the most interesting thing was to find the Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 Macro there; one of my favorite and treasured lenses. Who were Opcon? |
Have you seen the M42 mount Vivitar 90/2.5 on eBay? It has 25 watchers. The 1:1 converter is in a separate auction. Serial number starts with 378, so am I correct to assume this is the Opcon version? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
danfromm
Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 595
|
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
danfromm wrote:
Interesting thread that I missed when it was young. I'm glad it was resurrected and made visible again.
Doubly interesting because it is so sharply focused on fast narrow angle (normal) lenses for, mainly, 35 mm still. It omits 4/4 double Gauss wide angle types used on larger formats, e.g., Kodak Wide Field Ektar; Cooke Ser. VIIb and other similar lenses from Dallmeyer, Ross and Wray; Meyer Aristostigmat; CZJ's Topogon and all of the Topogon derivatives from many makers. It also omits slow narrow angle process lenses such as Lomo's f/10 RF-2, ..., RF-5.
Surprising in that it missed TTH's 6/4 double Gauss types completely.
The Sigma thingy is strange. No way are the first three groups a double Gauss type, the third group is a more or less a single Dagor (or clone) cell. The rearmost group is a little hard to read, not clear whether it contains a cemented doublet, air space, and cemented triplet (Dagor-like, again) or is five elements cemented together. Either way, not half of a conventional fast double Gauss type. Calling the lens a quadruple Gauss type is a large stretch.
Interesting phenomenon, trying to stretch an old idea to include what seems to be a new one.
Last edited by danfromm on Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
danfromm
Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 595
|
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
danfromm wrote:
JohnBar wrote: |
Schneider have produced a number of DG variations which do not appear in those charts, Xenon, Xenar etc |
The Xenon started out as a 6/4 f/2 double Gauss type licensed from TTH, turned into a trade name that includes other design types, all fast.
The Xenar is Schneider's Tessar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
MacTak wrote: |
Forgive me for dredging up an old thread, but I thought this would be the perfect thread to make some mention (and hopefully get a little discussion) of the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens announced today. For it features a very strange and (I think) novel design: the first quadruple-Gauss lens!?
Let's start with the rear half of the lens, which would itself be a relatively expected design for a fast 50--a Biotar/Xenon type, though one with a particularly enhanced rear group (two elements in the rear has been done on some fast 50mm, but here one of those elements is turned into a doublet and the other is aspherical). This rear half is much the same as the entire prior Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG EX lens (including that enhanced rear group with doublet + aspherical), except that lens split the front doublet (Ultron-type). But then there is also the whole front part of the lens design, and guess what, it clearly looks like another double-Gauss feature (stripped of any extra elements besides the opposed Gaussian elements themselves). In this case the front group remains split, and the rear group, instead of being the usual doublet (or split), has been made into a triplet! Like I said, pretty crazy. |
There's a strong negative element in the front half, and the back half is positive and Double-Gauss-like. A retrofocus lens ? _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spoilerhead
Joined: 25 Jan 2012 Posts: 68 Location: Austria
|
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spoilerhead wrote:
MacTak wrote: |
Forgive me for dredging up an old thread, but I thought this would be the perfect thread to make some mention (and hopefully get a little discussion) of the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens announced today. For it features a very strange and (I think) novel design: the first quadruple-Gauss lens!?
Let's start with the rear half of the lens, which would itself be a relatively expected design for a fast 50--a Biotar/Xenon type, though one with a particularly enhanced rear group (two elements in the rear has been done on some fast 50mm, but here one of those elements is turned into a doublet and the other is aspherical). This rear half is much the same as the entire prior Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG EX lens (including that enhanced rear group with doublet + aspherical), except that lens split the front doublet (Ultron-type). But then there is also the whole front part of the lens design, and guess what, it clearly looks like another double-Gauss feature (stripped of any extra elements besides the opposed Gaussian elements themselves). In this case the front group remains split, and the rear group, instead of being the usual doublet (or split), has been made into a triplet! Like I said, pretty crazy. |
It looks a lot like a very sofisticated medium format wide angle design. i.e. a read block "normal lens" and a front block "wide angle converter"
compare to:
Zeiss Biogon 21mm ZM
and the medium format wideangles at http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Rolleiflex_vs_Hasselblad_2/00_pag.htm
the new Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 is also similar:
_________________ Eos (A/D) + M42 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|