News Reviews Guides Learn Equipment Tutorials Spotlight

The Problem with

TRENDING ARTICLES

Modern Lenses Camera Films Itself

Getting Launched Out of
a Centrifuge at 1,000mph
MAR 14, 2016 YANNICK KHONG
MAY 07, 2022

How to Use Curves in

Photoshop
MAY 02, 2022

Optimize Your Lightroom

Photo Editing with These
Tips and Tools
MAY 06, 2022

How Much is Photoshop

in 2022?
MAY 07, 2022

Bride Shocked to Find

‘Crazy Eyes’
Photoshopped Into
Wedding Photos
MAY 05, 2022

When talking about the right kind of lenses, there are some
characteristics that people should not be buying for most
photographic practices. In this post I’ll be discussing the problem
with modern lenses.

Here’s a summary of what I call the Lens Intention Diagram.

-8%

$1,249.99
$1,149.99 $4,299.99 $1,149.99
-12%

$329.99
$289.99 $89.99 $89.99
Based on my “right” gear manifesto, lenses shouldn’t be (or aim to
-10%
be):

$999.99
$89.99 $899.99 $559.99
Top Articles

READ MORE

Optimize Your Lightroom Photo Editing with

These Tips and Tools

Sharp: All lenses today are sharp. Most modern lenses emphasize
sharpness in the edges and corners where nothing interesting is -10% -12%

truly happening (most of the time).

Corrected at Max Aperture: It is a modern belief that you are $89.99 $999.99 $329.99
supposed to get perfect corner to corner resolution at the
maximum aperture of the lens. Wrong.
Amazing at Bokeh: Achieving blurred circles of confusion in your
shot is as impressive as your ability to afford the lens. $559.99 $1,149.99 $89.99
Unidimensional: And there you have it, the result of 1-2-3 turns -8%

your lenses into a specialized lens for extreme low-light

photography and nothing else, thanks to the addition of up to
$249.99 $1,249.99 $1,729.99
double the glass element count in the barrel.

The Outdated Quest for Speed Led to the

Quest for Resolution

Gorgeous a7R II + 35 1.4 ZA (12 elements including 2 ASPH and 1

Super ASPH) combo shot on Ricoh GR (7 elements lens)

Up until recently, camera sensors couldn’t achieve usable image

quality above ISO 1600. Fast lenses were then great options to
freeze motion in low ambient light but they were not well
corrected. Fast forward a few years later, many camera sensors
have reached or crossed the useable ISO limit of 6400.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fungus? Do this
Every Evening

Your Fungus Will be

Gone in a Week Watch Now

This increase in sensitivity gain would allow lenses to be used at

smaller aperture rather than at their native to correct for chromatic
aberrations. Yet the birth of the Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art prime
lens series in late 2012/early 2013 encouraged the idea of a
massive highly corrected fast aperture prime lens described as
optics with “no-compromise”. This was wildly accepted by
photography gear critics and a community of image resolution
seekers, yet the results of such a thing are quite far from versatile.

The Wrong Message

Even today, the lens review industry considers “high performance

optics” to possess properties located well below the high-aperture
and optical correction by glass element line of the diagram. This,
of course, educates the consumer to seek “optical correction” in
order to fully enjoy the value of his high-resolution camera. The
message is usually transmitted through:

1. 100% crops of each areas of the frame, emphasizing corner

and edge correction for edge to edge resolution.
2. 100% crops of the blur circles of confusion (the bokeh).
3. Numerical “sharpness” values based on how many “lines of
resolution” is measured.
4. Persecuting vignetting and distortion as defects of the lens.

Often referred as a “cold and clinical lens”, such an ideal lens has
quite limited abilities, especially if the user wishes to shoot other
things aside from high-contrast for “ultra-lowlight or ultra-thin-DoF
handheld photography”: a lens in the red zone, below the “line of
realism” wouldn’t perform as well for spaces, still or moving life
capture compared to a another with much less correction and
much more 3D as well as tonality.

These high-speed lenses not only cost more since their require
more corrective glass, but the micro-contrast treatment would
need to be applied at abuse.

Modern Prime Lenses Fall Below What’s

Natural

Sigma ART 35mm f1.4 (13 elements including 3 ED + 2 plastic ASPH +

1 FLD glass) Notice the flat nose and head.

ADVERTISEMENT

Logitech Lift Vertica… Samsung The Frees…

If we look at those approximate diagrams per brand/system, we

notice the gravity of the obsession for optical correction.

ADVERTISEMENT

By either cheapening glass quality or relying too much on micro-

contrast treatment (ineffective against too many glass elements),
modern lenses are barely able reproduce the imperfect life despite
heavy post-processing by the user. Of course, they were built to
photograph in situations where the human eye cannot reach or
recognize. Their rendering are often described as “digital” or “flat”.
You simply cannot cheat the diagram.

Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.8G (8 elements including 1 plastic hybrid asph).

Notice the flat nose and head.

Older Prime Lenses Don’t Just Have

Character, They Simply Record Life

ikkor AF 35mm f2D (6 elements of multi-coated pure glass). Notice the

3D nose and head.

Many people shoot film because they believe in a “there-is-

something”, “true”, “organic” and “genuine” reproduction of life
with “interesting” or “unique” character. Simply put, those low-
element count multicoated “film” lenses were built for maximum
physical transparency, 3D rendering and rich tonality

These also possess such life recording abilities when used on a

digital camera. If we look at most lenses made before the surge of
high-element count primes, many of them share common design
and rendering properties.

ADVERTISEMENT
Lenses used by professionals then, lenses used by the
professionals in the know, now.

Nikkor AF 105 f2DC (6 elements of multicoated pure glass). Notice the

3D nose, head and trees

Solution for Modern Lenses: Improve Glass

and Coating Quality on Old Designs

The late 9-element Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f/2 Distagon is very close to
striking the absolute balance of maxed-out quality glass and
coating while flirting with the limits of optical correction before
losing the ability to reproduce life. A lens of such versatility would
definitely produce more life-like images than the digitally flat ones
that the review world is advocating.

Zeiss Distagon ZF.2 35mm f2. Notice the 3D nose, head and scotch
glass

If manufacturers would only revisit the philosophy of old optics,

we would witness the true evolution of life-like image quality.
Sadly, the solution will require way too many changes in the
industry.

ADVERTISEMENT

In store
Thule Wingbar Evo 1…
Rack Attack $299.95

Rack A'ack Toronto

Toronto 10AM–6PM

A Call for Change

Nikkor AF 85mm 1.8D (6 elements of pure multicoated glass). Notice the

3D nose, head and depth around the protester girl

If people are listening right now and realizing the gravity of the
situation, here are some suggested changes in photography gear
talk:

1. A clear indication of lens application specialty based on where

the lens is situated within the lens intention diagram.
2. If a lens is made for extreme low-light and thin-DoF shooting,
don’t suggest using it on anything else!
3. An honest discussion on the lens’ renditional abilities based on
how it measures on the 3 opposing properties of the lens diagram.
4. A better and simplified (5th grade level vocabulary) education of
lens usage in relation to modern sensors of high gain and
advanced signal-to-noise ratio firmware algorithms (i.e.
encouraging correction by aperture instead of correction by glass
element)
5. A strict demand for true improvement to modern optics by
rejuvenating old designs with improved high quality glass and
coating.
6. A better and simplified education of lens design (what plastic
elements do vs. full glass vs ED, etc…) to justify eminent
increased pricing.
7. A more critical and educated demography of users.

New Lens Acquisition Behavior

Simply buy the lens design that is made closest to your desired
photography style. There’s a high probability that most of the
lenses made for capturing life are affordable, out there, and
deemed “obsolete” by today’s review standards. Although these
are increasingly hard to find in good shape, I wish you good
hunting!

About the author: Yannick Khong is a photographer based in

Montreal, Canada. You can find more of his work and writing on his
website, blog, Instagram, and Flickr. This article was also
published here.

EDITORI AL, EDUCATION AL, EQUIPMENT

AN ALYSIS, INDUSTRY, LENSES, OPINION, OPTICS, PROBLEM, TECHNICAL

REL ATED ARTICLES

Some Thoughts on Lenses: A Different Perspective?

10 Vintage Lenses That Work Great on Mirrorless Cameras

Prime vs Zoom Lenses: A Beginner's Guide

Field Curvature, A Tricky Problem in Photography

Battle of the Nifty Fifties: Canon's 50mm f/1.8 Lenses

DISCUSSION

PetaPixel Comment Policy

Be respectful and on-topic. Please flag comments that are rude,
spam, or unhelpful. !
Comments for this thread are now closed ×

512 Comments PetaPixel 🔒 Privacy Policy #

1 Login

' Favorite 10 Sort by Best

Drew Gillespie • 6 years ago

I can't believe you're giving this guy any type of positive
reinforcement PetaPixel. He's full of pseudoscience and improper
testing. His "theories" have been debunked over and over again
on various sites prior to your posting this.

"3D Pop" does not exist. End of story.

151 △ ▽ 9 • Share ›

IHateLoggingIn > Drew Gillespie • 6 years ago

The biggest thing I noticed are that his examples for "flat
faces" have flat lighting, while his "3D" examples are more
directional light...
61 △ ▽ 1 • Share ›

Panacea > IHateLoggingIn • 6 years ago • edited

Absolutely, IHateLoggingIn. You can tell the
directional, side-biased lighting as you can see
distinct shadows in the shots that have them
(photos #3, #4 and #5).

And photo #6 shot supposedly demonstrating "3D

rendering" in diffuse lighting is obviously post-
processed with jacked-up "contrast" (global
contrast) and "detail" (local contrast) sliders. Easy
way to tell is if the human subjects look a little
dirty/grimy (aka "grunge" filter). And crushed blacks.

As a landscape photographer, playing with the

contrast/detail/vibrance/saturation sliders (the latter
two mostly to reduce the color effects of the first
two) is the easiest way one flattens or enhances the
"3D" qualities of the scene. It's effective when it isn't
overdone and there is no obvious frame of reference
(like human skin) to give away your manipulation.

The author of this article doesn't seem to know even

this much as you can see the unrealistic electric-
blue-rendered T-shirt in the background and blood-
red face paint and card clipped on her shirt. Taking
down some of the vibrance/saturation would have
hid his exact manipulation better.
14 △ ▽ • Share ›

Daniel Wang > Panacea • 6 years ago

@Panacea Well I guess the 3D pop he's
talking about is the " jacked-up 'contrast'
(global contrast) and 'detail' (local contrast)"
that you think is post processed.
△ ▽ • Share ›

Panacea > Daniel Wang

• 6 years ago • edited
If you can't tell between a lens with good
microcontrast vs. gross manipulation that
leaves an image (#6, just to leave no
ambiguity what we're talking about) with:

1. Crushed blacks (see the wide swaths of

homogenous black that runs shadow and
black fabric/hair together) worse than the
punchy, low DR output from a $100 point-
and-shoot*...

2. Everyone of every skin tone of both

genders having five-o'clock shadows in
diffuse light...

...then there is very little for us to discuss.

1△ ▽ • Share ›

This comment was deleted.

Mr Hogwallop > Guest • 6 years ago

It makes no sense as in the first shot of the guy he is
about 2-3 feet away from the camera and in the
second the woman is 4-5 feet away..less distortion.
21 △ ▽ • Share ›

Anthony Woodruffe > Guest • 6 years ago

I'm sure using the same subject in the images would
of helped add credit to Yannick Khong's theories
but sadly that wasn't the case. I'll see if I can do
some of my own tests. I have on old 35-70mm ED
and an 80-200mm ED... Personally I don't think I'm
going to see any marginal difference but hey who
knows?
2△ ▽ • Share ›

Uneternal > Anthony Woodruffe • 6 years ago

He actually did some more or less “scientific“
tests in his kitchen. You can see them in his
blog.
1△ ▽ • Share ›

Utilisateur > Guest • 6 years ago

Maybe because she is chinese (joke)
6△ ▽ 4 • Share ›

bob cooley > Utilisateur

• 6 years ago • edited
You may be making a joke, but you are right
in that the Asian model's facial
characteristics are flatter, and the other
model has longer features (more pointed
nose, etc.) - also the lighting on the Asian
model is flatter, and the other model has
more contrast, and side-lit.
27 △ ▽ • Share ›

layzworm > bob cooley • 6 years ago

Your point about the lighting is dead on. The
asian woman is in a glass greenhouse which
acts like a giant soft-box. The other woman
is in direct sunlight. I think the writer of the
article needs to try a few scientific tests with
the same model and same lighting.
3△ ▽ • Share ›

Jeff L > bob cooley • 3 years ago

Yes, the Asian model is in a greenhouse,
which have about the flattest, most even light
you'll ever find, and the other is outside in
directional light. Sheesh.
△ ▽ • Share ›

This comment was deleted.

bob cooley > Guest • 6 years ago

Did you bother to take a look at the photos in
question? I'm guessing not.

My comment has nothing to do with race.

The features of the models are what they are.
It is incidental that the model with the flatter
features happens to be Asian.

This would only be a bigoted statement if I

made a generalization about ALL Asian
models, which I clearly did not.

There are plenty of Asian models that have

sharper features, but in the sample photos
used, this is not the case.

So actually, I'd say you are the more racist -

looking for racism where there was none in
my comment.

So, sorry Social Justice Warrior, time to crawl

back to your safe space where you can be
hyper-vigilant looking for micro-agressions.
24 △ ▽ 1 • Share ›

This comment was deleted.

bob cooley > Guest • 6 years ago • edited

Nice backpedaling.

No one else seemed to be confused by it.

Perhaps it's an issue with your
comprehension skills, or perhaps your
overdeveloped sense of needing to play
white knight has prevented you from actually
reading what was written before reacting.

But nice try anon troll using a Helmut Newton

image as an Avatar...
11 △ ▽ • Share ›

This comment was deleted.

bob cooley > Guest • 6 years ago • edited

You are just embarrassing yourself at this
point (or rather, continuing to do so).

The only racism in my post is that which your

ignorance has projected onto it. That's your
issue and insecurity, not anyone elses.

And yes, we all know it's a photo of Lynch

and Rossellini (you don't even spell her last
name correctly, and her first name is Isabella,
not Isasora) - its a photo by Helmut Newton.
(SMH)

You might want to quit while you are only 5

steps behind...
7△ ▽ • Share ›

This comment was deleted.

Load more comments

✉ Subscribe ⚠ Do Not Sell My Data

Sponsored

Home About Podcast Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Full Disclosure SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
FOR DAILY ROUNDUPS

Your email
© 2022 PetaPixel

SUBSCRIBE