• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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

blockend said:
Except for portraits, the bokeh obsession is lost on me. Extreme subject isolation for its own sake is not something I'm interested in.
Click to expand...

I can't tell tell you how many pictures I have the have been ruined by this!
 
Huss said:
What don't you like about the rendition of the images I posted? Serious question as it may help some decide on what to look for in lenses.
Click to expand...

Well, this question can only be answered by personally comparing your lens to a lense design that I hold to be the standard in optimal vintage design.

That would be the Leitz or Nikkor 50mm F2 first released around 1964.

I find this lens design to have the most realistic rendition of all of the 50mm lenses I have used, as it is completely neutral and transparent, save for some rarely seen field curvature.
 

That doesn't answer the question.

I asked what don't you like about the rendition of the images I posted in this thread.

I get some people having a favourite lens. Fortunately or unfortunately for me such a lens does not exist!
 
Huss said:
That doesn't answer the question.

I asked what don't you like about the rendition of the images I posted in this thread.
Click to expand...

I have not seen enough of this lens to form a strong opinion of it.

What I can see leans to the cold and sterile side, even though it achieves a high degree of technical performance.
 
While I stand by my likes & dislikes regarding lenses, said ls & ds are really immaterial to this thread - because, as has been pointed out, the only real impediment to my photography is between my ears.
I've been looking a some Kodachromes I made in the early '70s, using a Kodak 35rf with an uncoated f:3.5 lens. My lightmeter then was a late '30s bakelite Weston.
No modern lens or technology would improve on those slides, or on any photograph I have made in the intervening (almost) fifty years.
P.s. still have that Kodak.
 
It all likely depends on the lens in question.

With the higher resolution of sensors the MTF's of lenses for digital capture needed to yield higher resolution.

Another aspect is the cover pane of sensors. If the lens is designed to bear negative correction so to say to counter abberrations introduced by that pane, a respective substitution filter should be used behind that lens, if that lens is used with film.
 

I wish people could/would understand this..I mean really stop, think and fully understand the implications of this very true statement....but I suspect those who obsess about what is Best are not interested in photography so much as they are in having some sort of status that comes from having fine jewelry.
 
blockend said:
However creative photography is not an exercise in data recovery, so absolute IQ is irrelevant to most users.
Click to expand...

Lens quality is not what is holding your photography back. Reading lens reviews on the internet does not make you a better photographer.
 
My statement actually is a statement by Rodenstock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register