Why did multi-focal lenses fall out of favor compared with zooms?
Asked 2/23/2013
2 views
2 answers
0
Some lenses, such as Leica's Tri-Elmar 16-18-21mm, offer a few fixed focal-length settings instead of a continuously variable zoom range. Why did this type of lens become uncommon? Is a multi-focal lens technically easier or harder to design than a zoom, and could a modern bifocal or trifocal lens (for example 35/50/85mm at a fixed aperture) be commercially or optically competitive with either a set of primes or a zoom covering the same range?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
5
That lens (the 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar) is a bit of an odd duck. It's an ordinary parfocal zoom lens in every way except one: it only has three strongly-detented focal lengths available to the user. It can be argued that this makes it easier to optimize the relationship between elements at the three available positions, but there is noless opportunity for wear and misalignment than there would be with a continuous zoom. The real reason for the lens being a Tri-Elmar rather than a Vario-Elmar is entirely to do with framing on a rangefinder camera. Without the detents, it would be necessary to have a viewfinder that zooms with the lens, probably an auxiliary finder. Whether you use an aux (hot shoe) finder with etched frames or the normal frame line sets in the rangefinder's viewfinder (which would be automatically selected by varying the position of the frame coupler on the lens mount) a multifocal lens becomes usable on a rangefinder without requiring a zooming finder as well.
Most discrete multifocal lenses, historically, were quite different. They were single, well-corrected focal length lens made in more than one part, and you could choose to leave one or more of the parts (lens groups) out of the assembly to get somewhat less-well-corrected lenses of different focal lengths. The original Symmar lens design is a good example of the breed—by removing the rear half of the lens from the shutter, you got a longer, slower lens (you still had the same iris, so the longer focal length meant a smaller relative aperture). It wasn't ideal, but the smaller aperture made up for some of the lost correction, and it was certainly cheaper than buying a separate, longer lens. Other multifocals came as kits, often with three groups, giving you three to six different focal lengths (depending on the design and how you assembled the lens). That's really only a practical (?) approach with large-format lenses where you have access to parts of the lens both in front of and behind the iris and shutter. And it's not entirely dissimilar in approach to the auxiliary lenses sold for cameras with fixed lenses.
With SLRs and other camera types having through-the-lens viewing/framing, there is no real advantage to not making a zoom. The mechanical couplings to adjust the relationships between the lens groups is not significantly more complex than it would be for a detented lens like the Tri-Elmar. And if the zoom range is kept as small as it is on the Tri-Elmar (just over a 1:1.3 range), then maintaining as high a degree of correction and recilinearity over the entire range would be just as easy.
Originally by user2719. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user2719
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Multi-focal lenses generally didn’t disappear because they were clearly superior or clearly easier to build. In the Tri-Elmar’s case, it was essentially a zoom lens with only a few strongly detented positions, mainly to suit rangefinder framing and viewfinder limitations rather than to create a fundamentally different optical category.
Technically, a multi-focal design still has moving groups, alignment concerns, and wear issues much like a zoom. Limiting it to a few focal lengths may allow some optimization at those positions, but it doesn’t remove the core complexity of a zoom mechanism.
Commercially, improved zoom design has likely made the category less compelling. Modern optical design tools and manufacturing have allowed zooms to reach image quality that can be very close to primes in some ranges, reducing the need for a lens that only stops at a few preset focal lengths. So for most buyers, manufacturers can cover demand more effectively with the familiar split of primes for maximum simplicity/speed and zooms for flexibility.
In short: multi-focal lenses are mostly a niche solution. They can make sense in special camera systems, but for mainstream use, modern zooms usually offer a better balance of convenience and market appeal.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Have there been fixed-lens DSLRs, and why are they uncommon?
Why did many lenses go from 10–12 aperture blades in the 1950s to 5–6 blades by the 1970s–80s?
Why are power zooms common on fixed-lens cameras but rare on interchangeable-lens cameras?
What is a prime lens, and what are its advantages over a zoom?
Why are ultra-fast built-in camera lenses (f/1.0–f/1.2) so rare?