Are lenses that are considered good for digital also good for film?

[George Mann]

Canon's FD 24-35 L lens (or its earlier version S.S.C.) had aspherical element and certainly did not make any negative impact on image, bokeh or whatever. If anything it was THE piece that made that lens so great.

I'm curious what is in fact TERRIBLE about it (@George Mann)? Or was it the old farts in design room had more going for them and new kids on the block entirely lost it in virtual design environment?

I am not familiar with that lens, but I find Canon SLR lenses to be cold and sterile in general.

The one company to successfully make aspherical lenses that still have warmth and character is Pentax (I don't know which Rokkors had them).

And yes, we old-time designers value a few things that todays designers seem oblivious to.

 

[George Mann]

Most digital lenses are toys compared to a pre-AI Nikkor.

None of my Ai primes are lacking in quality.

The latest sensors stretch the resolving power of existing lenses to the limit.

Which camera's contain such sensors?

 

[blockend]

Which camera's contain such sensors?

Full frame cameras in the 50-60 megapixel range are getting towards the upper end of possible resolution with current lens designs, given the demands of sharpness, colour saturation, micro contrast and high ISO performance. Extra resolution can be obtained by pixel shifting and in camera processing. This is an acknowledged fact of digital camera life.

Bear in mind a 63 mp sensor can make a nose-to-the-paper sharp print of 45 inches, and a 60 inch print sufficiently sharp for most viewings, even close up. That's more than 42 times larger than the sensor (or 35mm film negative). No lens I've used on 35mm film, including Leitz, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon, has ever made a pin sharp 5ft photograph. My biggest prints by the same criteria were 16", though I've printed acceptably sharp photographs to about 24". Transparencies projected and viewed closely are of similar resolution.

 

[Pieter12]

Which camera's contain such sensors?

Phase One XF IQ4 150 MP perhaps?

 

[blockend]

Phase One XF IQ4 150 MP perhaps?

Sony A7R IV 61mp (and rumoured Nikon Z8 with same sensor), Canon EOS 5Ds 50mp, Leica M10R 40mp, etc.

 

[film_man]

I have a Sigma Art lens which is great for digi so i wonder how this would work on film. I want to sell it because its heavy as hell The 50mm 1.4G is considerd as good but it is also know for heavy CA so i wonder if this would also show on film.

I‘m in the market for a 28 and 50 and maybe a zoom if its worth it. Money is (almost) no object, weight is

Lenses designed in the digital era (ie released when the manufacturer no longer made film bodies) will work just fine on film (just beware of compatibility). CA is generally less of an issue on film though I can still see it wide open with my 85/1.4D. I assume you're in the market for Nikon lenses, I'd go for the first gen 24-70, or the 17-35 if you want something wide but these are big heavy things.

For a 50, if you don't mind manual focus the 50/1.2 is one of my favourite 50s ever (I prefer it over the Canon 50/1.2L though the AF was very handy). Or maybe a Voigtlander 40/2, that's another interesting option and absolutely tiny and light (as SLR lenses go).

 

[George Mann]

Full frame cameras in the 50-60 megapixel range are getting towards the upper end of possible resolution with current lens designs.

Transparencies projected and viewed closely are of similar resolution.

Yet 8x10 transparencies show us how much a lens can really resolve.

 

[George Mann]

Phase One XF IQ4 150 MP perhaps?

See my latest response above.

 

[George Mann]

.For a 50, if you don't mind manual focus

The Leitz/Nikkor 50mm F2 is my lens of choice over any other, and I have yet to see a digital sensor (or film) that could out-resolve it.

 

[Pieter12]

Yet 8x10 transparencies show us how much a lens can really resolve.

Your lenses of choice (50mm f2 Leitz or Nikkor) could not make an 8x10 transparency. Yet large format lenses (the only way to produce a first generation 8x10 transparency) are often not as sharp as smaller format lenses, since the final images are not enlarged as much.

 

[George Mann]

Your lenses of choice (50mm f2 Leitz or Nikkor) could not make an 8x10 transparency. Yet large format lenses (the only way to produce a first generation 8x10 transparency) are often not as sharp as smaller format lenses, since the final images are not enlarged as much.

It would be interesting to see an 8x10 produced using a 35mm lens.

Of course we can expect the usual issues produced by the smaller image circle.

And lenses only have to be useably sharp to get the job done.

 

[blockend]

And lenses only have to be useably sharp to get the job done.

I agree. When box cameras were the popular option, a simple meniscus lens on a 6x6 or 6x9 negative was capable of making contact prints or small enlargements. Box cameras met the demand for a picture kept in an album, a small frame or a wallet. There was nothing inadequate about a Kodak Brownie for the job.

At the other extreme, some publishers used large format press cameras into the 1960s. They didn't trust a photographer to be able to frame an image in a way they wanted to use it. The final negative area may not have been larger than roll film, or even 35mm, but the publisher could editorialise the shot in the way they saw fit. The idea of a photographer creatively framing a shot had been around since the c19th, but really took off with hand held 35mm cameras whose negatives had no surplus resolution. This lead to an aesthetic that privileged "full frame" use, sometimes including a black border to illustrate that the photographer had composed his shot as he/she intended it to be used. Magnum photo agency evolved to push home this documentary artist view in opposition to news editor storytelling.

Digital technology has brought hand held cameras with resolution much greater than most of its users require. Because screens show technical shortcomings in a way print rarely did, through instant enlargement, cameras are judged on criteria that were unavailable in film days. The ability to shoot in virtual darkness with minimal resolution deficit, or make hundreds of images of a sporting event in a brief press of the shutter, for example.

The idea that you can "never have enough resolution" has always been around, and it rarely leads to better photographs on film or digital.

 

[film_man]

Yet 8x10 transparencies show us how much a lens can really resolve.

How is that even an argument? Shall we compare 8x10 to the Hubble? We're talking lenses for 35mm film cameras or equivalent sensor digital.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a Sigma Art lens which is great for digi so i wonder how this would work on film. I want to sell it because its heavy as hell The 50mm 1.4G is considerd as good but it is also know for heavy CA so i wonder if this would also show on film.

I‘m in the market for a 28 and 50 and maybe a zoom if its worth it. Money is (almost) no object, weight is

short answer: Yes!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I honestly can't think of a reason why a "designed for digital capture" lens would suffer used on film.

Other than the specific parameters Oren mentioned, it wouldn't.

I find most often that they are cold, sterile and lacking in character.

Yeah, like high-sample-rate digital audio recordings. Neither photography using the Sigma 50mm Art lens mentioned by the OP nor musical performances competently recorded digitally add any "character" of their own. Each relies on what's being captured for warmth and, shall we say, an "infectious" experience.

Elitist nonsense is apparently endless

 

[Helge]

I am not familiar with that lens, but I find Canon SLR lenses to be cold and sterile in general.

The one company to successfully make aspherical lenses that still have warmth and character is Pentax (I don't know which Rokkors had them).

And yes, we old-time designers value a few things that todays designers seem oblivious to.

Are you a lens designer‽
If yes,
I’d be interested to hear you elaborate a bit on the general characteristics of the various brands you are familiar with, and your favorite lenses and why they are that.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In theory a lens designed for digital could leave certain aberrations for automatic digital correction, but I’d be curious to see any examples of that actually happening, i.e., an image made with the same lens on a full frame 35mm digital body and film body showing something like really excessive curvilinear distortion (“excessive” meaning “more than the comparable film-era lens”) on the film that doesn’t exist on the digital original due to autocorrection in camera. Even then you would have to ask whether the inherent curvilinear distortion was left intentionally, since lenses had varying amounts of curvilinear distortion anyway before digital, and one of the attractions of digital/hybrid photography is the possibility of digitally correcting the flaws of older lenses that may be lighter, cheaper, and/or more rugged than newer lenses.

Ultimately, the only solution is to try stuff out and see what you like. Some digital era lenses look fantastic on film, just because they have new technology that can get the sharp part of the image sharper, so it stands out more from the out-of-focus area, if you’re into short depth of field. Some are not so interesting. Not all old lenses were “classics,” and nothing prevents new lenses from becoming future-classics.

 

[George Mann]

Are you a lens designer‽
If yes,
I’d be interested to hear you elaborate a bit on the general characteristics of the various brands you are familiar with, and your favorite lenses and why they are that.

I am an inventor and engineer, but have no practical experience designing lenses.

 

[George Mann]

Elitist nonsense is apparently endless

More like opinions based on experience which you don't agree with.

 

[George Mann]

How is that even an argument? Shall we compare 8x10 to the Hubble? We're talking lenses for 35mm film cameras or equivalent sensor digital.

No, the contention is how much a lens can resolve. Will an 8x10 lens resolve more or less than one designed for 35mm?

 

[Dan Fromm]

No, the contention is how much a lens can resolve. Will an 8x10 lens resolve more or less than one designed for 35mm?

If the two lenses are made to the same prescription -- silly assumption, but necessary to compare like with like -- the 8x10 lens will have lower resolution because for a given prescription aberrations scale with focal length.

 

[George Mann]

the 8x10 lens will have lower resolution because for a given prescription aberrations scale with focal length.

And yet it allows the 8x10 to capture the highest resolution ever seen in a commercially available device!

 

[Huss]

I use SIgma Art lenses on film. They work great.
Nikon F6 w/ Sigma Art 50 and Fuji C200:

 

[film_man]

No, the contention is how much a lens can resolve. Will an 8x10 lens resolve more or less than one designed for 35mm?

I don't know if a 8x10 resolves more than a 35mm lens on that 36x24 patch the smaller lens will cover (unless you are talking about comparing a 35mm frame to a whole 8x10 sheet...).

Regardless, do tell, should one wish to test say a Nikon 50/1.2 vs a 8x10 lens, which 50mm 8x10 lens should we use? Let's see now...50mm 8x10 lenses...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

More like opinions...

Opinions which are worth as much as as the other thing that everyone has.