Canon’s new super telephotos

[mongo]

I have always said that no lens maker has the monopoly on making fine lenses and Nikon certainly has no monopoly on that. I used to shoot Pentax and some of their lenses were the finest in their particular class:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-05-02.shtml

The Pentax A*135mm f1.8 and A*85mm f1.4 (I think this is the one your are referring too?) are also top of their tree, so to speak.

Zeiss makes some gems, as does Leica and f course Canon. The Vivitar 105mm f2.5 Series 1 Macro is another little gem.

All I was saying was that blanket statements are quite a dangerous thing to make!

You are right - Mongo had forgotten the Pentax 135mm f1.8 – also quite renowned. Should also let you know that Mrs Mongo has the original Pentax A*300mm f4 lens – a gem. Mongo also had the Vivitar Seris 1 105mm f2.5 (purchased new years ago) . A super lens. Sold it last year still as new in its box to an AP member who has made great use of it. Mongo must say, though , that the best of these (approximate 105 mm macros range) in his opinion, is still the original manual Tokina 90mm f2.5 – now rare.

It was extremely interesting to read the material on some Pentax classics in the link you provided

No arguments from Mongo on blanket statements – they can be cause for swift scrutiny and Mongo has since qualified his statement to something he believes to be closer to what was intended.

[arthurking83]

This general acceptance of the fact that Nikon doesn't use fluorite in any of it's lenses is not exactly true and correct. They have at least one (admittedly very little known) lens that uses fluorite lenses, and as far as I know of it, the only lens that uses all fluorite lenses in it's optical design.
The lens is the little known 105 f/4.5 UV lens, and the use of only fluorite lenses is mostly due to the UV transmission quality of that substance. Normal glass generally tends to inhibit the transmission of UV, or at least dull it to a major degree.

I've never really seen any real evidence that the use of fluorite in the construction of a camera lens generally entails higher quality images.

Nikon's telephoto lenses are proof that the non use of fluorite has not harmed their performance in any way(and that have the ability to out resolve the pixel cramming ability of the D3x!)

I'm pretty sure that Nikon is fully aware of both the performance and marketing advantage of fluorite in the manufacture of lenses.

I'm not entirely sure of Leica's lens range(as they make nothing for Nikon) but I'm sure I'm correct when I say that Zeiss don't use any fluorite elements in any of their camera lenses.(they may or may not use them in their spotting scopes, but I know nothing of them)
They do advertise the use of T* coatings tho, and the purpose of this T* coatings is to reduce reflections.

Voightlander's 125 APO is APO due to the use of ED lens elements(2 of them according to literature), and I suspect very high attention to design detail. But not a single Fluorite lens element!(at least not in the literature about the lens).

One of the main purposes of fluorite in the lens is to assist in the focusing of different wavelengths of light(ie. what makes an apochromatic lenses).
So how does Voghtlander(or how did they, as this lens is no longer manufactured) achieve this with only the use of ED(Extra low Dispersion) coatings instead of fluorite?

if you really want to see(visualise) the purpose of this APO design of a lens, then I strongly urge anyone with an interest to head over to Photozone and check out the analysis of the Voightlander 125/2.5 lens and particularly note the lack of any LoCa's in the sample image.

While it's easy for us armchair critics to question the manufacturers intentions and reasons for their process and workings, I think the proof is always in the product itself.

as an example of how this works. Nikon 200 f/2 ED easily has the best quality images of any 200mm lens that I've ever seen, with the ability to resolve insanely minute detail from the likes of just about any modern DSLR, and yet only uses ED and Super ED lenses in the construction of this lens. Definitely no fluorite.
Traditionally the 300/2.8 was the showcase lens for Nikon for the introduction of new lens technologies(such as ED coated lenses and Nano coating, etc, etc), whereas this seems to have migrated to the 200/2 now with their use of Super ED glass(in the literature for the lens on Nikon's web site).

Apart from endless arguments in semantics, to be honest, I see no reason for the use of fluorite in lenses, when there are obvious other methods for producing high quality optics.
If there's any advantage in using it, then it should produce a real and measurable advantage on the final image result.(which I doubt we'll ever really see in the real world)
If the purpose of fluorite in any (camera)lens elements is to serve the marketing department in gaining an upper hand, then it's a wasted resource.

[Lance B]

You mean ... er .... maybe like saying that "none of the other lens makers ... use flourite lenses"? In that case, I agree with you!

Sigh. You need to re-read my original post again. I said, "But none of the other lens makers, like Pentax, Olympus, Zeiss, etc use flourite lenses either, as far as I know. I know for sure that Pentax doesn't. I could be wrong about the other's though."

A blanket statement is a statement intended as if it were fact, whereas my statement actually questioned whether I was right, as I wasn't sure. Big difference.

[Lance B]

This general acceptance of the fact that Nikon doesn't use fluorite in any of it's lenses is not exactly true and correct. They have at least one (admittedly very little known) lens that uses fluorite lenses, and as far as I know of it, the only lens that uses all fluorite lenses in it's optical design.
The lens is the little known 105 f/4.5 UV lens, and the use of only fluorite lenses is mostly due to the UV transmission quality of that substance. Normal glass generally tends to inhibit the transmission of UV, or at least dull it to a major degree.

I've never really seen any real evidence that the use of fluorite in the construction of a camera lens generally entails higher quality images.

Nikon's telephoto lenses are proof that the non use of fluorite has not harmed their performance in any way(and that have the ability to out resolve the pixel cramming ability of the D3x!)

I'm pretty sure that Nikon is fully aware of both the performance and marketing advantage of fluorite in the manufacture of lenses.

I'm not entirely sure of Leica's lens range(as they make nothing for Nikon) but I'm sure I'm correct when I say that Zeiss don't use any fluorite elements in any of their camera lenses.(they may or may not use them in their spotting scopes, but I know nothing of them)
They do advertise the use of T* coatings tho, and the purpose of this T* coatings is to reduce reflections.

Voightlander's 125 APO is APO due to the use of ED lens elements(2 of them according to literature), and I suspect very high attention to design detail. But not a single Fluorite lens element!(at least not in the literature about the lens).

One of the main purposes of fluorite in the lens is to assist in the focusing of different wavelengths of light(ie. what makes an apochromatic lenses).
So how does Voghtlander(or how did they, as this lens is no longer manufactured) achieve this with only the use of ED(Extra low Dispersion) coatings instead of fluorite?

if you really want to see(visualise) the purpose of this APO design of a lens, then I strongly urge anyone with an interest to head over to Photozone and check out the analysis of the Voightlander 125/2.5 lens and particularly note the lack of any LoCa's in the sample image.

While it's easy for us armchair critics to question the manufacturers intentions and reasons for their process and workings, I think the proof is always in the product itself.

as an example of how this works. Nikon 200 f/2 ED easily has the best quality images of any 200mm lens that I've ever seen, with the ability to resolve insanely minute detail from the likes of just about any modern DSLR, and yet only uses ED and Super ED lenses in the construction of this lens. Definitely no fluorite.
Traditionally the 300/2.8 was the showcase lens for Nikon for the introduction of new lens technologies(such as ED coated lenses and Nano coating, etc, etc), whereas this seems to have migrated to the 200/2 now with their use of Super ED glass(in the literature for the lens on Nikon's web site).

Apart from endless arguments in semantics, to be honest, I see no reason for the use of fluorite in lenses, when there are obvious other methods for producing high quality optics.
If there's any advantage in using it, then it should produce a real and measurable advantage on the final image result.(which I doubt we'll ever really see in the real world)
If the purpose of fluorite in any (camera)lens elements is to serve the marketing department in gaining an upper hand, then it's a wasted resource.

That's a damn good post, Art!

[DNA]

I think the top end lenses are just as good as each other. It's more the quality of the photographer that makes the ultimate difference to the images captured.

[pmack]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

[Doninoz]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

???!

[mrDooba]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

You can read my thoughts

[KeeFy]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

KeeFy thinks so too.

[Tannin]

Tannin doesn't like to see people complaining about Mongo.

[William]

Mongo is a friend of William's, William likes the way Mongo speaks in 3rd Party as well

[Tannin]

I've never really seen any real evidence that the use of fluorite in the construction of a camera lens generally entails higher quality images.

One of your least sensible posts, Arthur.

Look a bit harder and it is easy to see the difference. A very effective way to do this is to compare two otherwise identical high-quality optical systems, one using fluorite and the other one not. (This lets us sidestep quality variations due to other causes.) Both Swarovski and Leica manufacture Fluorite and non-flourite models which are essentially identical - the flourite models are obviously better, and hugely better when looking directly into the light.

If you can be bothered, we can see if we can scare up someone with a Swarovski APS-80 to compare with my APS-80HD - I've made this comparison before on birding trips, and it's light and day. Seen it done on the web with formal reviews too: same answer. Same deal with the Leica optics - the flourite version costs an extra $1000 or so and is easily better.

Most of the world's top-ranking optics makers, however, reckon they know more about it than you and I do - 'cause they use flourite wherever the performance advantages are judged compelling enough to outweigh the quite significant extra cost and difficulty of manufacture.

It's not just camera lenses, it's anything in high-quality optics where improved control of CA is cruical. For reasons beyond my limited understanding of optics, flourite always seems to be used in long focal length, high magnification optics, but not in wide-angle designs. So it's near-universal in high-quality optical microscopes, high-quality spotting telescopes, and top-class binoculars, also used in astronomical optics and around 80% of the world's top-quality super-telephoto lenses.

The unquestioned best three telescope manufacturers - Swarovski, Leica, and Zeiss - all use flourite. All of the major miscroscope manufacturers use it (including both Olympus and Nikon).

It is apparently quite difficult to work, as you have to do a lot of operations at very low temperatures, and it also requires care to mount properly - it isn't as resistant to high temperatures as orthodox glass, which is why Canon super-teles are white. Nevertheless, properly made, fluorite lenses seem to be perfectly usable in the field - we don't see reports of mass failures of (for example) Canon teles or Swarovski scopes after a heat wave, and they remain in service for many decades.

[Xenedis]

On the issue of fluorite lenses and white barrels, some people believe the use of white by Canon is a marketing exercise.

While I have little doubt that the visual presence of Canon's white lenses has brand recognition benefits, the reason for white barrels is more scientific than marketing-oriented.

In a nutshell, fluourite doesn't like heat.

White reflects heat.

The result is that the lens's innards are kept cooler.

Some clever chap decided to conduct an experiment, whereby he left both a black and white lens in the sun, and then took thermal images of the lenses after they'd been exposed to the sun's heat.

More details (and photos) can be found at the following dpreview.com thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=12671815

[Tannin]

^ In that case, why don't Swarovski fluorite lenses meltdown on hot days? They are a dark olive green. Zeiss ones are black, if my memory serves. But all of the Leica ones are silver.

I don't deny that there is sense in having a white lens - hell, if nothing else, it's more pleasant to touch on a hot day - but I bet that the marketing department love it even more than the engineers.

Link to entire thread ---> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=12671815

[Stingray]

Darren is wondering where he's gonna get $1200 for the 600mm
very nice lenses

[Tannin]

^ I'll give you the missing "0". Put your $1200 in front of that zero and you'll have enough.

[mongo]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

Pmack is in for a steep learning curve. Mongo does it no other way. You should try living a little on the wild side too.

[Art Vandelay]

Art enjoys the quirkiness of Mongo's posts. Art has also just flicked on his music box and listening to Lou Reed, thanks to the reference above. Though he is unsure which part Mongo plays in that little ditty.

[davearnold]

Dave copes with Mongo speak well, because it is usually of good value and informative, and Dave learns from it

[pmack]

pmack handled it fine before, but things have changed. mongo hasn't changed, pmack has.