[Scythels]

 

That's my point as well. I'm not related to you and your behavior as if you could design better camera lenses anytime is just infantile.

It's actually readily possible to design better lenses.  The sky is the limit in lens design, the big problems are making it manufacturable and making it cost effective.  ILC lenses are generally pretty poor performers, any lens designer worth their salt can design lenses several times better with relative ease.  Typically the requirements when you take lens design courses are actually to produce higher performance lenses than them by a rather large margin. 

 

I believe you are missing the point of what I am saying - ILC camera lenses are highly aberrated.  All of them.  Even the "greats" are really "not so greats but kinda goods."  Again, from all manufactures.  I would estimate that 85% of imaging optics are better corrected than ILC camera lenses. 

 

 

I guess, none of your as "better" or "superior" displayed lens designs is available on the market?

The f/2.7 design is about 35 years old I think.  Robert E Hopkins designed it ages ago for the nikon F mount.  You used to be able to buy it for ~$750USD equivalent today.  Bob is often considered the "father of optical engineering," one of the reasons I chose to show you a design of his is to prove that it isn't just research optics that are this well corrected. 

 

 

a couple of raindrops could ruin the whole experimental setup as well

I am a bit confused why you speak as if I am a fool and shouldn't talk about the A1 testing tool sigma created, but are willing to speculate as to the durability of these lenses.  The f/0.9 lens is extremely large and the complete assembly weighs several hundred (if not thousand) pounds.  It's not a type of lens designed for environmental use, so I don't know exactly how durable it is - but is extremely highly engineered mechanically as well as optically so I doubt even hitting the barrel with a sledgehammer would disturb the optics.  The f/2.7 lens is built as well as other premium MF lenses from its era.  By most photographer's standards that is very very well and "indestructible" but I personally wouldn't exactly describe that construction style that way. 

 

 

I know, this all will just cost nothing more after you rambled about and the lenses will sell itself, no need to make advertisements for them.

Advertising is the Achilles' Heel of the entire optics industry.

 

 

No difference between your presentation and one of a fraud who claims[...]

I am not a liar. http://i.imgur.com/y0gMhKQ.jpg

 

 

if you're not allowed to go in details neither to show a ready lens with those superior resolution curves, why not just shut up?

This will come, actually sometime in the near future, but not for free as it is actually legally complicated to do so.  The f/0.9 lens I showed data from I made a call to the designer to ask if I could show you the MTF curves, and the f/2.7 lens's patent has expired.  I can show you an f/1.2 lens bob designed that you can buy used for $100 if you want as well.  It was actually the first commercial lens to use an asphere. 

 

 

But once you get a job in the optical industry you can show us how good a lens can be.

I already have one (two, actually).  The f/0.9 example I showed is close to the "maximum capacity" of what is possible because it is so well corrected and so fast.  They really don't get all that much better than that.  The fastest lenses of that class are currently about f/0.6 and 3-8% higher resolution at 500lp/mm.  There are actually serious problems in that area of lens design now that we are approaching the f/0.5 limit and reflector (vs refractor) systems will begin to have to be explored, which presents issues as reflector systems require a great deal of optical "folding" to remain compact.  I suspect freeform surfaces will come into play extensively, but I am not sure they are manufacturable at the required diameters. 

 

With regard to the camera industry, they do generally give "lousy stuff" in that (IL) camera lenses tend to be "very highly" aberrated.  Smaller format lenses are much better e.g a customer's lens I am doing early prototype QC/mtf testing on which has an MTF of 68-48% at 104lp/mm depending where on the sensor you look.  By comparison, the 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar has an MTF of .48-.03 depending where in the sensor you look at the same frequency.  The customer's lens is also cheaper per unit than the APO-Sonnar.  Like most lenses, it cannot simply be purchased as it was designed and is being built under contract for a specific customer of theirs.

 

 

Now, how about a contribution to the opening question of the thread instead of hijacking it to show off how much you know about lens design? Any idea about the VR / OS / IS, how they work or what they do, when switched off?

I don't know everything JoJu (far from it, really) but I've said all I know there already. 

 

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/top...entry29828

 

Perhaps there is an opto-mechanical engineering hanging around this forum that knows better than I do.