For those inclined, here's three different 40mm lenses from Voigtlander. Take note of the ratio of front element vs. rear element. Some are converging in size, others are diverging as the light passes through the light path.
Simply stated, do you think a converging vs. diverging design will distribute the rate of transition, the same?
Then, take a walk through the Nokton thread and (yes, the Nokton is faster, but not even those stopped down kind of shots, too) take notice if you start to detect a theme.
I've mentioned this lens before as having caught my attention in this regard. But, the salient point is that those three lenses are intentionally designed differently. At a sophomoric perspective, the design is a difference in size, but the decisions to distribute converging / diverging light path is more than about size alone.
While I can't speak to the level of someone like Karbe or Mandler regarding lens design, I do take note of the converging / diverging relationships as the light passes through the elements (also part of my studies many years ago with the aforementioned Zeiss glass, et al). During the "epic" thread, I searched out all the data sheets I could find (mostly from Zeiss) and began to "deconstruct" the math of the optics from the "producers" vs. the "non-producers", to look for trends. I've since "data dumped" the hard info, but as a result of that exercise, my resolve to the designers approach influences the effect ... well, you get the gist.
For those intrigued by the subject, I'd suggest comparing your favorite rendering / transitioning lenses against their element design. Also, the amount of spherical / ASPH relationships start to play in to things, too (similar to my previous reference to Vintage Line vs. Ulton / APO).
You might find certain designs present themselves to your tastes ... kinda like how some folks prefer oak in the wine ... strong, mild, none. Not everyone cares about such things, but for those who are intrigued by it, the 40's above may make for an introduction / primer for some.
P.S. Not sure why Voigtlander is showing TWO different designs on the Nokton page, but still the realization that converging / diverging / neutral collimated designs influence transition rates. Nuanced, sure ... why not. But, as with many things in life, some folks appreciate the nuance, others not so much.
For those inclined, here's three different 40mm lenses from Voigtlander. Take note of the ratio of front element vs. rear element. Some are converging in size, others are diverging as the light passes through the light path.
Simply stated, do you think a converging and diverging design will distribute the rate of transition, the same?
Then, take a walk through the Nokton thread and (yes, the Nokton is faster, but not even those stopped down kind of shots, too) take notice if you start to detect a theme.
I've mentioned this lens before as having caught my attention in this regard. But, the salient point is that those three lenses are intentionally designed differently. At a sophomoric perspective, the design is a difference in size, but the decisions to distribute converging / diverging light path is more than about size alone.
While I can't speak to the level of someone like Karbe or Mandler regarding lens design, I do take note of the converging / diverging relationships as the light passes through the elements (also part of my studies many years ago with the aforementioned Zeiss glass, et al). During the "epic" thread, I searched out all the data sheets I could find (mostly from Zeiss) and began to "deconstruct" the math of the optics from the "producers" vs. the "non-producers", to look for trends. I've since "data dumped" the hard info, but as a result of that exercise, my resolve to the designers approach influences the effect ... well, you get the gist.
For those intrigued by the subject, I'd suggest comparing your favorite rendering / transitioning lenses against their element design. Also, the amount of spherical / ASPH relationships start to play in to things, too (similar to my previous reference to Vintage Line vs. Ulton / APO).
You might find certain designs present themselves to your tastes ... kinda like how some folks prefer oak in the wine ... strong, mild, none. Not everyone cares about such things, but for those who are intrigued by it, the 40's above may make for an introduction / primer for some.
P.S. Not sure why Voigtlander is showing TWO different designs on the Nokton page, but still the realization that converging / diverging / neutral collimated designs influence transition rates. Nuanced, sure ... why not. But, as with many things in life, some folks appreciate the nuance, others not so much.
For those inclined, here's three different 40mm lenses from Voigtlander. Take note of the ratio of front element vs. rear element. Some are converging in size, others are diverging as the light passes through the light path.
Simply stated, do you think a converging and diverging design will distribute the rate of transition, the same?
Then, take a walk through the Nokton thread and (yes, the Nokton is faster, but not even those stopped down kind of shots, too) take notice if you start to detect a theme.
I've mentioned this lens before as having caught my attention in this regard. But, the salient point is that those three lenses are intentionally designed differently. At a sophomoric perspective, the design is a difference in size, but the decisions to distribute converging / diverging light path is more than about size alone.
While I can't speak to the level of someone like Karbe or Mandler regarding lens design, I do take note of the converging / diverging relationships as the light passes through the elements (also part of my studies many years ago with the aforementioned Zeiss glass, et al). For those intrigued by the subject, I'd suggest comparing your favorite rendering / transitioning lenses against their element design. Also, the amount of spherical / ASPH relationships start to play in to things, too (similar to my previous reference to Vintage Line vs. Ulton / APO).
You might find certain designs present themselves to your tastes ... kinda like how some folks prefer oak in the wine ... strong, mild, none. Not everyone cares about such things, but for those who are intrigued by it, the 40's above may make for an introduction / primer for some.
P.S. Not sure why Voigtlander is showing TWO different designs on the Nokton page, but still the realization that converging / diverging / neutral collimated designs influence transition rates. Nuanced, sure ... why not. But, as with many things in life, some folks appreciate the nuance, others not so much.
For those inclined, here's three different 40mm lenses from Voigtlander. Take note of the ratio of front element vs. rear element. Some are converging in size, others are diverging as the light passes through the light path.
Simply stated, do you think a converging and diverging design will distribute the rate of transition, the same?
Then, take a walk through the Nokton thread and (yes, the Nokton is faster, but not even those stopped down kind of shots, too) take notice if you start to detect a theme.
I've mentioned this lens before as having caught my attention in this regard. But, the salient point is that those three lenses are intentionally designed differently. At a sophomoric perspective, the design is a difference in size, but the decisions to distribute converging / diverging light path is more than about size alone.
While I can't speak to the level of someone like Karbe or Mandler regarding lens design, I do take note of the converging / diverging relationships as the light passes through the elements (also part of my studies many years ago with the aforementioned Zeiss glass, et al). For those intrigued by the subject, I'd suggest comparing your favorite rendering / transitioning lenses against their element design. Also, the amount of spherical / ASPH relationships start to play in to things, too.
You might find certain designs present themselves to your tastes ... kinda like how some folks prefer oak in the wine ... strong, mild, none. Not everyone cares about such things, but for those who are intrigued by it, the 40's above may make for an introduction / primer for some.
P.S. Not sure why Voigtlander is showing TWO different designs on the Nokton page, but still the realization that converging / diverging / neutral collimated designs influence transition rates. Nuanced, sure ... why not. But, as with many things in life, some folks appreciate the nuance, others not so much.
For those inclined, here's three different 40mm lenses from Voigtlander. Take note of the ratio of front element vs. rear element. Some are converging in size, others are diverging as the light passes through the light path.
Simply stated, do you think a converging and diverging design will distribute the rate of transition, the same?
Then, take a walk through the Nokton thread and (yes, the Nokton is faster, but not even those stopped down kind of shots, too) take notice if you start to detect a theme.
I've mentioned this lens before as having caught my attention in this regard. But, the salient point is that those three lenses are intentionally designed differently. At a sophomoric perspective, the design is a difference in size, but the decisions to distribute converging / diverging light path is more than about size alone.
While I can't speak to the level of someone like Karbe or Mandler regarding lens design, I do take note of the converging / diverging relationships as the light passes through the elements (also part of my studies many years ago with the aforementioned Zeiss glass, et al). For those intrigued by the subject, I'd suggest comparing your favorite rendering / transitioning lenses against their element design. You might find certain designs present themselves to your tastes ... kinda like how some folks prefer oak in the wine ... strong, mild, none. Not everyone cares about such things, but for those who are intrigued by it, the 40's above may make for an introduction / primer for some.
P.S. Not sure why Voigtlander is showing TWO different designs on the Nokton page, but still the realization that converging / diverging / neutral collimated designs influence transition rates. Nuanced, sure ... why not. But, as with many things in life, some folks appreciate the nuance, others not so much.
For those inclined, here's three different 40mm lenses from Voigtlander. Take note of the ratio of front element vs. rear element. Some are converging in size, others are diverging as the light passes through the light path.
Simply stated, do you think a converging and diverging design will distribute the rate of transition, the same?
Then, take a walk through the Nokton thread and (yes, the Nokton is faster, but not even those stopped down kind of shots, too) take notice if you start to detect a theme.
I've mentioned this lens before as having caught my attention in this regard. But, the salient point is that those three lenses are intentionally designed differently. At a sophomoric perspective, the design is a difference in size, but the decisions to distribute converging / diverging light path is more than about size alone.
While I can't speak to the level of someone like Karbe or Mandler regarding lens design, I do take note of the converging / diverging relationships as the light passes through the elements (also part of my studies many years ago with the aforementioned Zeiss glass, et al). For those intrigued by the subject, I'd suggest comparing your favorite rendering / transitioning lenses against their element design. You might find certain designs present themselves to your tastes ... kinda like how some folks prefer oak in the wine ... strong, mild, none. Not everyone cares about such things, but for those who are intrigued by it, the 40's above may make for an introduction / primer for some.
P.S. Not sure why Voigtlander is showing TWO different designs on the Nokton page, but still the realization that converging / diverging / neutral collimated designs influence transition rates. Nuanced, sure ... why not. But, as with many things in life, some folks appreciate the nuance, others not so much.
For those inclined, here's three different 40mm lenses from Voigtlander. Take note of the ratio of front element vs. rear element. Some are converging in size, others are diverging as the light passes through the light path.
Simply stated, do you think a converging and diverging design will distribute the rate of transition, the same?
Then, take a walk through the Nokton thread and (yes, the Nokton is faster, but not even those stopped down kind of shots, too) take notice if you start to detect a theme.
I've mentioned this lens before as having caught my attention in this regard. But, the salient point is that those three lenses are intentionally designed differently. At a sophomoric perspective, the design is a difference in size, but the decisions to distribute converging / diverging light path is more than about size alone.
While I can't speak to the level of someone like Karbe or Mandler regarding lens design, I do take not of the converging / diverging relationships as the light passes through the elements. For those intrigued by the subject, I'd suggest comparing your favorite rendering / transitioning lenses against their element design. You might find certain designs present themselves to your tastes ... kinda like how some folks prefer oak in the wine ... strong, mild, none. Not everyone cares about such things, but for those who are intrigued by it, the 40's above make for an introductory / primer.
P.S. Not sure why Voigtlander is showing TWO different designs on the Nokton page, but still the realization that converging / diverging / neutral collimated designs influence transition rates. Nuanced, sure ... why not. But, as with many things in life, some folks appreciate the nuance, others not so much.
Sep 21, 2025 at 03:47 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16894681 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
