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

[Odot]

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

 

[darkosaric]

It will work on film as well. I don't think there is such thing as a lens specially for film or digital, lens works on both media. 28mm Nikkor f1.4 AF-D is considered best 28mm Nikkor ever made. For 50mm - my favorite is Nikkor-H 50mm f2, it is very small and light.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

CA on film is called as Lomography. It is good.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes. In fact, film lenses are sometimes not as good with digital.

 

[George Mann]

To answer the Op's question, I find that each type of lens tends to perform best with the format it was intended for.

 

[PhotoJim]

Film tends to hide chromatic aberration better than digital, since colour capture is stacked vertically instead of offset (at least that's my theory about why it happens). That means that:

- a lens that's good on digital will definitely be good on film
- a lens that's good on film may not be good on digital, because its chromatic aberration will be magnified somewhat

Film didn't generally (or at least as often) require ED glass in wide and normal lenses. CA just wasn't an issue often with film at such focal lengths. ED glass was limited to complex zooms and telephoto lenses, where CA was obvious on film.

 

[StepheKoontz]

As others have said, lenses that work well on digital will also work well on film but the converse isn't always the case, especially with wide angle lenses. There are many wide rangefinder lenses that smear and are otherwise unusable on a mirrorless camera that work great on film. There is some truth to the telecentric design that 4/3 introduced, but it's not as extreme as it was with some of the earliest sensors. Also, as others have pointed out, digital seems to amplify CA. I honestly can't think of a reason why a "designed for digital capture" lens would suffer used on film.

 

[George Mann]

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

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

 

[Pieter12]

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

Example?

 

[Oren Grad]

You can't generalize - it depends on the specific lens and intended use.

One reason why a newer lens "optimized for digital" might be problematic with film is that lens designers are increasingly making tradeoffs in which certain optical defects - notably linear distortion and vignetting - are less stringently corrected in the design on the assumption that they will be corrected or compensated for in post-processing of the digital capture. This is especially true of lenses made in mounts for mirrorless digital cameras, which are irrelevant to film photography because there is no practical way to adapt them to film cameras. But it can affect lenses in legacy mounts as well.

That said, some of the very best digital-generation lenses in legacy mounts are well-corrected across the board and ought to be spectacular for film photography, especially for those who want to take full advantage by using slow films and meticulous technique. For example, having had the opportunity to test it on a high-resolution digital camera a while back, I'd be really interested to see what the Zeiss Milvus 35/1.4 can do with T-Max 100 or Acros. Or one of the Zeiss Otus lenses, which I haven't tried. Of course, keeping the OP's concerns in mind, these are very large, heavy and expensive lenses, and some prospective users, if they can tolerate that much weight, size and cost, might be better off going to medium or even large format instead. On the other hand, I have shot my Canon EF 40/2.8 pancake lens on film as well as digital, and it's every bit as much a delight on film as it is on digital. It's tiny, featherweight, and a steal at the price.

 

[BobD]

Digital cameras have image-enhancing algorithms built into them. I understand they are getting quite sophisticated in their ability to correct for lens aberrations and other shortcomings. This makes me wonder if, as image enhancements improve, perhaps lens build quality is allowed to slip to save costs since the camera's built-in computer will take up the slack so to speak.

 

[Paul Howell]

My current Sigma full frame lens that were designed for Digital bodies work well on film bodies and my older lens seem to work well on a digital body, it may have to do with the Favon sensor. As my Sony A lens will not work with any of my Minolta bodies so cant really say. My friends who are shot Nikon say that older Nikons lens are more prone to Chromatic Aberration, only one shoots film and his newer lens are G type work fine on his F5.

 

[George Mann]

Example?

Nothing specific as I really don't care to remember them, but I can tell you that all of them are junk build-wise, and are loaded with those terrible aspherical elements!

 

[markjwyatt]

Digital sensors do not do well with off-normal rays. So I suspect the lenses for digital are much more corrected to assure a parallel ray bundle out the rear element. This is likely achieved with many more elements than would be needed for film lenses. Since we have much more powerful computers, this can be handled today, and in addition much better lens coatings and coating processes. So the lenses tend to much better (some may even say sterile as I heard), and it is probably why some are heavy. On the other hand a lot few Sonnar type film lenses are also really heavy.

 

[Pieter12]

Nothing specific as I really don't care to remember them, but I can tell you that all of them are junk build-wise, and are loaded with those terrible aspherical elements!

Do I sense a bit of a Luddite?

 

[markjwyatt]

George Mann said: ↑
Nothing specific as I really don't care to remember them, but I can tell you that all of them are junk build-wise, and are loaded with those terrible aspherical elements!

Do I sense a bit of a Luddite?

I should have added aspherical elements as part one of the tools available for modern lenses. But one thing I do wonder about is if aspherical elements have a negative impact on things like bokeh.

 

[George Mann]

Do I sense a bit of a Luddite?

ABSOLUTELY!

 

[MattKing]

It would be nice if the micro 4/3 lenses could be used with a camera body using 110 film - the formats are essentially the same size after all.
My incredibly tiny 14-42mm kit zoom lens used with T-Max 100 or Ektar 100 would be a lot of fun!

 

[Odot]

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

I know i will catch some heat for this from some of you but while Zeiss lenses are well-built, in terms of optics they lack character so much. I had a Biogon 35mm 2.8 which simply lacked character, a look if you will.

 

[JensH]

Yes. In fact, film lenses are sometimes not as good with digital.

Yes,

some optics are problematic - I get strange blur/reflections using a Apo-Rodagon-D 5.6/120 on bellows with a DSLR, those newer were a problem with film, no matter 24x36mm or 4x5". The glass in front of the sensor may be the cause.
Other lenses perform perfectly on both, like the Zeiss C/Y 2.8/28, 1.4/50, 1.4/85 lenses, be it a Contax RTSII or DSLR.

Best
Jens

 

[Down Under]

All my Nikon D lenses seem to fit the bill. I use them regularly on my two D700s, my D800 and the pair of F65s (aka N65) film bodies I take along now and then, one with B&W and the other with E6 color, just for the fun of it and to use up the huge stocks of aging film I have in my darkroom freezer.

A friend occasionally borrows my three older (AIS) Nikkors (50mm f/2 HC, 35mm f/2 O, 85mm f/2) to use on her DX Nikon, I'm not sure which Nikon model she has but I do know it's one that will take the old Nikkors. Her results are nothing short of exceptional and she puts my own efforts entirely to shame.

As for 'character', I will defer to my exceptionally talented friend who tells me her 'trick' to getting the most out of her images is twofold. One, sharpen a little, but not too much. She says shooting RAW tends to produce softer images which are always improved by a tad or two tads of sharpening. Two, darken the images to the point that the shadows go a little black, then up the contrast by a few points. That's it!!

I suspect she may have a big arsenal of other photo techniques up her sleeve, but she insists that is all she ever does to her pictures.

 

[138S]

I have a Sigma Art lens which is great for digi so i wonder how this would work on film.

A DSLR is able to correct automatically two flaws from the lens, one is distortion and the other is the color fringes in the corners. So a lens designed for digital may play less atention to those flaws to correct better other flaws.

Of course you can also use Photoshop to correct distortion and color fringes (lateral chromatic aberration), but in the BW film case color fringes are not there and instead you have some "micro-blur", that would be corrected with some additional sharpening in the corners.

The Sigma Art is a good lens, also totally suitable for film, but you may want a bokeh kind or other...

yes... at 800gr it's not a feather... but weight is not always bad. Pro gear tends to be heavy, a heavy setup is steady and shots are better, but in modern times VR, and higher ISO allows to use lighter gear.

 

[Paul Howell]

It would be nice if the micro 4/3 lenses could be used with a camera body using 110 film - the formats are essentially the same size after all.
My incredibly tiny 14-42mm kit zoom lens used with T-Max 100 or Ektar 100 would be a lot of fun!

Get a Minolta 110 zoom, or a Pentax 110, I know Pentax made a couple of primes and a motor winder, not if they made a zoom. I still see old stock 110 film, not sure how well it has held up even cold storage or frozen.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

George Mann said: ↑
Nothing specific as I really don't care to remember them, but I can tell you that all of them are junk build-wise, and are loaded with those terrible aspherical elements!



I should have added aspherical elements as part one of the tools available for modern lenses. But one thing I do wonder about is if aspherical elements have a negative impact on things like bokeh.

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?

 

[blockend]

This makes me wonder if, as image enhancements improve, perhaps lens build quality is allowed to slip to save costs since the camera's built-in computer will take up the slack so to speak.

Build quality and optical quality are different things. Most digital lenses are toys compared to a pre-AI Nikkor, what matters with digital is the image on the file. The latest sensors stretch the resolving power of existing lenses to the limit. We will almost certainly see a new generation of glass being developed in the next few years. A 12-24mp sensor is more forgiving of optical shortcomings than a 60mp sensor. However creative photography is not an exercise in data recovery, so absolute IQ is irrelevant to most users. Even large format fans use sheet film for the look, rather than its enlargement potential.