> Space age lenses were significantly lower resolution than the film.
Can you say a little more about this? Modern lenses boast about 7-elements or aspherics, but does that actually matter in prime lenses? You can get an achromat with two lenses and an apochromat with three. There have definitely been some advances in glass since the space program, like fluorite versus BK7, but I'm wholly in the dark on the nuances.
I find modern primes much sharper than their older counterparts not because of the elements or the optical design, but from the glass directly.
Sony's "run of the mill" F2/28 can take stunning pictures, for example. F1.8/55ZA is still from another world, but that thing is made to be sharp from the get go.
The same thing is also happening in corrective glasses too. My eye numbers are not changing, but the lenses I get are much higher resolution then the set I replace, every time. So that I forget that I'm wearing corrective glasses.
> I find modern primes much sharper than their older counterparts not because of the elements or the optical design, but from the glass directly
Even back in their prime, haha, the Cooke lens leaned into their glass manufacturing by calling it the Cooke Look. All of the things that gave it that look are things modern lenses would consider as issues to correct.
Actually, I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how lenses and systems behave. A lens with its unique flaws and look is equally valuable for me as a razor-sharp ultra high-fidelity lens.
All boils down what you want to achieve and what emotion you're trying to create with your photography. Film emulation has gone a long way, but emulating glass is not possible the same way (since you don't have any information about what happened to your photons in their way to your sensor), and lenses are important part of the equation, and will forever be, I think.
Actually, anything we use is "just tools". IDEs, programming languages, operating systems, text editors, fonts, etc.
We all prefer different toolsets due to our differing needs and preferences. Understanding it removes a lot of misunderstanding, anger and confusion from the environment.
But, reaching there requires experience, maturity and some insight. Tool suitability is real (you can't drive a screw with a pair of pliers), but the dialogue can be improved a ton with a sprinkle of empathy and understanding.
The lenses also have to be better to compensate for the smaller sensors. All lens defects get more "magnified" the smaller the sensor is. So a straight comparison isn't fair unless the sensor is the same size as the film was.
I wrote a longer post a few months ago.[1] The tl;dr is a) computer aided design and manufacturing b) aspherical elements c) fluorite glass d) retro focus wide angle designs and e) improved coatings. Mirrorless lenses also beat slr lenses because they are much closer to the film plane — of course rangefinders and other classic designs never had this problem to begin with.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42962652
Edit: this is just for prosumer style cameras. If you look at phone sized optics that’s a whole other ballgame.
Can you say a little more about this? Modern lenses boast about 7-elements or aspherics, but does that actually matter in prime lenses? You can get an achromat with two lenses and an apochromat with three. There have definitely been some advances in glass since the space program, like fluorite versus BK7, but I'm wholly in the dark on the nuances.