What's the "leica look"?

http://patents.oncloud8.com/?pns=US3915558;US4136931

US3915558 High power wide-angle lens
GLATZEL ERHARD

A wide-angle lens whose back focus (for remote objects at infinity) is
greater than 85 percent of the equivalent focal length of the entire
lens assembly, and whose relative aperture is between f/1.8 and f/1.2,
with an exceptionally high photographic performance and particularly
low residual aberrations of high order over an angular field of view
of more than 60 DEG . Rules or conditions are stated which, if
followed, will enable the production of lenses having these desirable
characteristics. Eight specific examples are given.

Published Oct 28, 1975

US4136931 High speed wide angle lens system
GLATZEL ERHARD

A high speed wide angle lens system of the same general kind disclosed
in Glatzel, U.S. Pat. No. 3,915,558, but with a slightly larger
aperture and with improved image formation. While the lens formation
of the U.S. Pat. No. 3,915,558 starts with two negative components,
followed by a positive component, a meniscus, two negative components
and two positive components in the rear part, the improved performance
of the present invention is achieved by such a modification which
enforces the positive power of the rear part of the lens. For this
purpose the rear part is made to consist of three positive components
(VII, VIII, IX) which are designed in such a way that the quotient of
the sum of the surface powers of the air lenses between the three rear
positive components SIGMA phi delta divided by the refractive power (
phi +EO) of the air lens between the two positive components of the
front part of the lens (III, IV) lies between a disclosed upper and
lower limit and that in addition to this rule the paraxial surface
power sum of the second-last component (VIII) also is within disclosed
limits times the paraxial surface power sum of the third-last
component (VII). Eight specific examples are given to illustrate the
validity of the disclosed conditions and rules.

Published Jan 30, 1979


(brian) wrote in message om...
TP wrote in message . ..
Chris Loffredo wrote:

You mention "developed": How are newer ones different from older ones?
Are there any particular moments when the design was changed?

AFAIK they were first made for the Contarex (late '50s early '60s) and
havn't changed significantly since.


They have been around for much longer than that. The basic Zeiss
designs have been developed over the course of the last ~100 years.

Vaguely true for the 85/1.4, but the 35/1.4 dates to design work done
by Glatzel in the 1970s (see U.S. Patents 3,915,558 and 4,136,931) and
bears no resemblence to any century-old designs. Also, I doubt that
these lenses were particularly expensive to design since it should not
have taken more than a few man-months to complete. Today it would be
possible to achieve equal or better results in a week or so.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

While the "Planar" scheme was designed in 1896, I don't think it was
originally opened to f/1.4...
; )

The Distagon has to be much more recent: Retrofocus wide-angles were
invented by Angenieux in 1950.

I tried searching for more accurate information, but no luck.
Only info was that at least the 85 f/1.4 was first made for the Contarex.

Chris


brian wrote:
TP wrote in message . ..

Chris Loffredo wrote:


You mention "developed": How are newer ones different from older ones?
Are there any particular moments when the design was changed?

AFAIK they were first made for the Contarex (late '50s early '60s) and
havn't changed significantly since.


They have been around for much longer than that. The basic Zeiss
designs have been developed over the course of the last ~100 years.


Vaguely true for the 85/1.4, but the 35/1.4 dates to design work done
by Glatzel in the 1970s (see U.S. Patents 3,915,558 and 4,136,931) and
bears no resemblence to any century-old designs. Also, I doubt that
these lenses were particularly expensive to design since it should not
have taken more than a few man-months to complete. Today it would be
possible to achieve equal or better results in a week or so.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

Chris Loffredo wrote in message ...
While the "Planar" scheme was designed in 1896, I don't think it was
originally opened to f/1.4...
; )

Very true. The double-Gauss type was first developed at Zeiss, but
was then forgotten until Horace Lee in England developed it into a
true high-speed design.



The Distagon has to be much more recent: Retrofocus wide-angles were
invented by Angenieux in 1950.


The name may have been invented in the 1950's, but the design type
appeared decades earlier. Interestingly enough, the earliest reversed
telephoto design I'm aware of is a Zeiss design (Albert Konig) dating
to about 1913 (U.S. Patent 1,085,868), but it only covered a very
narrow field of view and has little in common with true wide-angle
retrofocus designs. Horace Lee (again) designed a very modern-looking
wide angle reversed telephoto around 1930 (U.S. Patent 1,955,590).

I tried searching for more accurate information, but no luck.
Only info was that at least the 85 f/1.4 was first made for the Contarex.

Chris

TP wrote in message news:

snip


Both these lenses (35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4) are among the best
developed optics you will find today. The importance of these focal
lengths to photojournalists and portrait photographers means that
large amounts of time and money have been invested in their design,
and the lenses are simply superb.

It is a pity that Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 falls so far short of the
performance of the Carl Zeiss (and Leica) equivalent(s).


Can you provide some test results to substantiate this?

Frankly, I am skeptical of claims of German optical supremacy anytime
after 1955 or so, but proof is proof. (Neither Carl Zeiss nor Leica
are big contractors to Panavision, for one thing: Panavision optics
are mostly from Japan or Switzerland, but not exclusively.)

(Ted Azito) wrote in message . com...
TP wrote in message news:

snip


Both these lenses (35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4) are among the best
developed optics you will find today. The importance of these focal
lengths to photojournalists and portrait photographers means that
large amounts of time and money have been invested in their design,
and the lenses are simply superb.

It is a pity that Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 falls so far short of the
performance of the Carl Zeiss (and Leica) equivalent(s).


Can you provide some test results to substantiate this?

Frankly, I am skeptical of claims of German optical supremacy anytime
after 1955 or so, but proof is proof. (Neither Carl Zeiss nor Leica
are big contractors to Panavision, for one thing: Panavision optics
are mostly from Japan or Switzerland, but not exclusively.)

Panavision? WTF? Doesn't ELCAN (the old Leitz Canada) make some of their lenses?

Panavision? WTF? Doesn't ELCAN (the old Leitz Canada) make some of their lenses?


At one time they did. I think they were dropped for various issues.

(Ted Azito) wrote in message . com...
TP wrote in message news:

snip


Both these lenses (35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4) are among the best
developed optics you will find today. The importance of these focal
lengths to photojournalists and portrait photographers means that
large amounts of time and money have been invested in their design,
and the lenses are simply superb.

It is a pity that Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 falls so far short of the
performance of the Carl Zeiss (and Leica) equivalent(s).


Can you provide some test results to substantiate this?

Frankly, I am skeptical of claims of German optical supremacy anytime
after 1955 or so, but proof is proof. (Neither Carl Zeiss nor Leica
are big contractors to Panavision, for one thing: Panavision optics
are mostly from Japan or Switzerland, but not exclusively.)

Panavision optics are mostly American these days.

TP wrote in
:

Of course a personal web site would appear **absolutely essential** to
anyone on an ego trip, like yourself.

Tony, why did you post your poor snapshots at ShutterCity? Why did you
remove them?

Magnus W wrote:

TP wrote in
:


Of course a personal web site would appear **absolutely essential** to
anyone on an ego trip, like yourself.


Tony, why did you post your poor snapshots at ShutterCity? Why did you
remove them?


Tsk, tsk, Magnus. How dare you impugn the reputation of TP, Lord
Master Photographer. TP is *above* showing his photography and
need only claim to have any acceptable results at a rate of 50
rolls of film per average *week*.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--