Walter's link, with the Putt's article on the 80-200 zoom definitely puts that lens in the exceptional class. In order to support my former contention that certain focal lengths are "sweeter" than others, I offer this quote from Putts. "Leica lenses at the fixed focal length of 135 mm have vanished for a long time, but it still is a very interesting focal length where exacting performance may be required. And around 200 mm current prime lenses are outstandingly good and it is reasonable that the photographer expects the same type of performance of the vario lens at this focal length of 180 mm to 200 mm." I don't know what he means by "vanished" but i would guess that he means that everything that can, or could, be done designwise, with the 135mm focal length, has been done and that, insofar as the designer is concerned, the book is closed. Dave ________________________________ From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 8:28:17 AM Subject: [LRflex] Optimal Focal Lengths ... for Dave Simms Good Morning, Dave! You wrote: >According to the tests and commentaries, it's hard to find a Leica zoom that >isn't the equal of a prime lens. This may be true of the current crop, but certainly not of the earlier, Minolta designed, Leica Zooms. >I sometimes wonder whether, when a manufacturer >is locked into producing,say, a 50mm lens because it is deemed to have a >"normal" perspective, that they don't handicap themselves. >What I'm thinking is that, when all the calculations have been done, >a 44.3 mm >lens may end up being optimal, or, a 31.2mm for example. In other >words, there >must be particular focal lengths that are optimal, in terms of design >parameters, whereas it's a struggle to produce the "standard" focal lengths. >Hence, when stacked against this inherent uphill battle, it may be able to >produce a relatively good zoom which may never improve upon "optimal" focal >lengths but which knocks the hell out of the standard ones. Back in 2006, I had a discussion with Peter Karbe, head of the optical dept, at Leica. He told me that there are two factors at play, when it comes to lens design... the designer's skill and the company's money. Although modern computerized ray-tracing and related software really speeds up the optical design process, it does not replace the brilliance (or lack thereof) of both the optical and mechanical designers. The designer can simply try different lens shapes and glass types much faster. As well, some glass types can cost a thousand Euros per kilo, while basic optical (flint) glass may be as low as 10 to 15 Euros/kilo. So while some designers may be free to use the best glass for the purpose, most often the Sales department puts restrictions on what can be used by limiting the cost of production before design is even started! Then there is the complexity of the mechanical design.... in virtually all zooms, different internal "blocks" of elements move at different rates, and different distances, not to mention different directions, to achieve optimal performance. Here again, having more groups that move independently may well improve performance, but it also makes the lenses much more complex (read: expensive) to manufacture. So, once again, the Sales department is often an impediment to the design. So, you see, it has little to do with "optimal focal lengths", and much more to do with final production costs. Because prime lenses are far simpler, mechanically, at any given price point, any firm can put more into the design, as the mechanical construction portion of the final price is quite low. Besides, a good prime lens may have only 5 to 8 elements. Fewer elements means not only fewer reflections and other internal problems, but also lower costs, as you simply make fewer pieces! Here, performance for the dollar is generally highest. Zoom lenses often have between 12 and 18 elements... add in the more complex mechanical movements and you can see where/how costs rise. Thus, to keep retail prices "reasonable", most makers limit manufacturing costs before design begins. Ergo, very few zooms equal the performance of top notch primes. I think Leica zooms do better simply because of the price range they are in. Leica allows more to work with. As well, Leica design their lenses for top-notch performance, and only after the design is done, do they evaluate whether they can afford to produce it. I was told that there are many designs which never see "the light of day", for even Leica cannot afford to produce them at a sellable price! And I'll still put my 80-200/f4 up against any prime, from any maker. Something that can be said of very few zoom lenses. Cheers! ------------- David Young - Photographer Logan Lake, BC, Canada Wildlife & Sports: www.furnfeather.net Personal pages: www.main.furnfeather.net A micro-lender through KIVA.org. ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/