Have optic design changed in the digital age?

[scarleton]

I am looking at getting either the Nikkor 85/1.4D or 85/1.4G for my Nikon F5. While I know the G is a much newer design, I am wondering if the older D, designed in the era of film would actually be a better lens for me. Here is why I ask:

Many, many years ago (early 2000's) I recall reading that long, fast lens designed for film photography where not idea of digital photography because of DOF and the media being used... What I recall was that the lens design for films took into account that the RGB layer in the film was physically at a different distance (plains) from the lens. Because of that, company, especially in the large format world, started coming out with lens for digital sensors where all three colors needed to focus at the same plain.

My questions:

1. Is this a true fact that lens designed for film don't work so well on digital and thus lens designed for digital don't work so well on film?
2. If this is the case, does anyone know if the Nikkor 85/1.4G is a digital lens design? I assume it is since it came out only a few years ago long after digital became the go to format.

 

[Paul Howell]

This is an all analog thread. I would ask on the digital subforum. But from what I understand newer lens are optimized for a sensor rather than film. I dont shoot Nikon, at least with Sony and Pentax I dont see any real issues with shooting Minolta film lens on Sony Body, with Pentax I shoot M42 and K lens on my K2000, nothing that cant be fixed. As don' shoot much color film dont know if there will be color cast when shooting a new Sony Lens on a Minolta Body.

 

[JWMster]

Well.... I have the 85/1.4D and use it with my D750 and F100 just fine. I am very happy with the lens. This is not a technical answer to a technical question, but the price is also a lot sweeter for the D lenses. THen again, I'm a guy who had a number of Zeiss-optic Contax CY lenses rebuilt and would stack that glass up against any modern counterparts - even use on a Sony A7Rii... which I did. There are those who do lens recoatings and the heavy duty rebuild who tell me that the EPA (and Euro equivalent) re-spec of the composition of glass has had a greater impact on lens design, and that the older glass is unrecognized for its superior optics because many are comparing old, worn glass to new. And rebuild results in a "better" result. Whether that's true or not is out of my field... that's simply a quote you can take or leave. But the point is at least valid to the extent that we're seldom making apples to apples comparison in terms of the condition of the lenses we're referencing. At the same time, I have every reason to believe that more contemporary manufacture quality control ***can*** be much higher even if the glass is lower quality (because of non-compliant elements now excluded in manufacture).... which may or may not be the case. As to the optical level of the glass relative to the level of specific colors within a color film, I leave that to others. Hope this helps.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am looking at getting either the Nikkor 85/1.4D or 85/1.4G for my Nikon F5. While I know the G is a much newer design, I am wondering if the older D, designed in the era of film would actually be a better lens for me. Here is why I ask:

Many, many years ago (early 2000's) I recall reading that long, fast lens designed for film photography where not idea of digital photography because of DOF and the media being used... What I recall was that the lens design for films took into account that the RGB layer in the film was physically at a different distance (plains) from the lens. Because of that, company, especially in the large format world, started coming out with lens for digital sensors where all three colors needed to focus at the same plain.

My questions:

1. Is this a true fact that lens designed for film don't work so well on digital and thus lens designed for digital don't work so well on film?
2. If this is the case, does anyone know if the Nikkor 85/1.4G is a digital lens design? I assume it is since it came out only a few years ago long after digital became the go to format.

all! my Nikkoranalog lenses work just fine on my Nikon digital camera.

 

[jim10219]

No lens will focus all colors (wavelengths) of light onto the same plane. A standard lens can only focus one color at a time. You can choose whichever color you want by filtering the lens and adjusting the focus. An achromat lens can focus two colors at a time onto the same plane, however, you don't get to choose which two colors they are. These are the most common lenses in photography. An apochromatic lens can focus three colors at once onto the same plane. Once again, you don't get to choose which colors can be simultaneously focused. These tend to be rather expensive. A superchromatic lens can focus four or more colors at once, however, they usually cannot focus more than three in the visible spectrum (if that). So their use is mainly for scientific instruments and are extremely expensive.

Most prime lenses haven't changed a whole lot in the last 50 years. There have been some updates in coatings and some of the older lenses might use radioactive elements that manufacturers no longer use (for worker safety reasons, they're perfectly safe to use for the photographer). Sometimes the lens formulas have changed over the years, and with computers, we're seeing a lot more aspherical elements in use, which was hard to do before the use of computers.

I don't know about any differences between the Nikon 85/1.4 D and G other than the D has an aperture ring and probably smoother manual focusing. I would guess they're both double Gauss designs, so I'd imagine that they're optically pretty similar. There might be some small updates in coating technology, though the D lenses are recent enough to be multicoated and will likely perform very well. There might be significant differences that I'm not aware of.

It's usually zoom lenses that show the most improvement since the introduction of digital. This is mainly because zoom lenses came about not too long before digital, and their complex designs mean that they benefit most from computer aided design and manufacture. So the first generations of zooms tend to be not so great. Most of the newer zooms tend to be quite good.

The depth of field "problem" is usually because manual focus lenses are harder to get into focus, especially if the depth of field is small. Autofocus takes this out of the hands of the user, but a good photographer should still be able to focus a manual lens, even with a shallow depth of field.

There are a few lenses from the film era that will not focus well on a digital sensor due to the filter in place over the sensor. These are mainly (to my knowledge) rangefinder lenses with rear elements that extend close to the film plane which causes the light to strike the digital sensor at a sharp angle which can cause significant refraction when passing through the sensor's filter. Of course with higher resolutions in digital versus film, modern lenses tend to be made to higher optical tolerances. So some old lenses that were designed for film and look sharp on film, may look softer on a high resolution digital sensor. But many old film lenses (especially primes) still render extremely sharp images even on high end digital sensors.

 

[StepheKoontz]

The 85mm f1.4D is softer in the corners but has amazing bokeh, the 1.4G is sharper in the corners but the bokeh is nowhere near as smooth. Both work fine on a digital camera, I prefer the older 1.4D.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The rough explanation I heard regarding lenses "made for digital" was that such lenses were optimized so that light would strike the sensor more straight-on rather than at an angle. This is because, I presume, the pixels are not as sensitive to light striking them from an angle, whereas with a film emulsion it doesn't matter.

This effect may be more pronounced with APS-sized sensors than full frame. I would expect Nikon DX lenses to be "optimized for digital" rather than FX or the D lenses.

Alternately, this could all be hogwash.

 

[AgX]

1. Is this a true fact that lens designed for film don't work so well on digital and thus lens designed for digital don't work so well on film?

In theory lenses for a digital sensor have to be limited in resolution at higher frequences. This was a major topic at least at one major manufacturer for LF lenses quite some years ago, who designed their lenses this way. But I have not heard about this since then

 

[StepheKoontz]

The rough explanation I heard regarding lenses "made for digital" was that such lenses were optimized so that light would strike the sensor more straight-on rather than at an angle. This is because, I presume, the pixels are not as sensitive to light striking them from an angle, whereas with a film emulsion it doesn't matter.

This effect may be more pronounced with APS-sized sensors than full frame. I would expect Nikon DX lenses to be "optimized for digital" rather than FX or the D lenses.

Alternately, this could all be hogwash.

It's mainly relevant for wide angle lenses and especially on mirrorless models with a short flange distance. I have found many of the wide lenses designed for film use on a rangefinder perform poorly on a digital camera, especially off center. Once you get into the retrofocus SLR lenses, this isn't a huge problem. I have seen a few film era lenses that reflect a "hot spot" on a digital sensor that isn't seen using film as well.

 

[trendland]

filmOTE="scarleton, post: 2174914, member: 12012"]I am looking at getting either the Nikkor 85/1.4D or 85/1.4G for my Nikon F5. While I know the G is a much newer design, I am wondering if the older D, designed in the era of film would actually be a better lens for me. Here is why I ask:

Many, many years ago (early 2000's) I recall reading that long, fast lens designed for film photography where not idea of digital photography because of DOF and the media being used... What I recall was that the lens design for films took into account that the RGB layer in the film was physically at a different distance (plains) from the lens. Because of that, company, especially in the large format world, started coming out with lens for digital sensors where all three colors needed to focus at the same plain.

My questions:

1. Is this a true fact that lens designed for film don't work so well on digital and thus lens designed for digital don't work so well on film?

[/QUOTE]

From my point it is much dependable - with first generation digital (4 - 8 MP) it is total nonsense
and no " true fact" the midt evolution digital generation (10 - 24 MP) can operate quite well
with "modern lenses" of film cameras!
But listen - a cheap M42 lens of the 50s with adapter to modern bajonet can also work fine with a 24MP Nikon! But for this case it must the "the extreme " best lens AT SWEETSPOT of the 50s period!
So it is hard to find and identify such lens (making tests)! The normal case is : A lens of the 50s/60/70 may have problems to reach resolution a 24MP sensor have the need of!
BUT THEN SUCH LENS IS ALSO NOT IDEAL WITH FILM!
ALL MODERN LENSES OF THE 90S SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH RESOLUTION FOR DIGITAL!

But manufacturers want to sell complete new lenses and stated nonsence! Some changed bajonet!
Some designed lenses for APS C from smaler format (after that they changed to full frame)!
And designed complete New series of lenses!
That was allways done with the statement (optimized for digital) what is by the way also
NONSENCE!

But the latest digital full frame up to 80MP (next 120MP) has indeed the need of extreme good
lenses (most Nikon AF out of the 90s can't reach)!
Here it may give some extreme good MF lenses (10 - 15) years older wich may be a bit better!
Because not every AF lens was the best between!
So if you have intention to shot extreme resolution with digital you have the need of extreme good
lenses of Nikon,Canon, Zeiss for example! But the are expensive!
This lenses are optimized for digital? Not complete true because they will offer extreme good resolution for film also!

with regards

 

[scarleton]

Folks, I am the OP. I really appreciate all the replies, but... from what I am reading most folks seem to be answering the wrong question. I am NOT concerned about using the 85/1.4 with digital.

My ONLY concern is which lens will be BETTER for FILM. From all the replies, it sounds to me that the newer G is NOT going to be less sharp, but someone did mention the boken is better on the older lens. considering the price difference, that sounds like a winner to me.

Am I missing something?

 

[faberryman]

Surely optical designs have changed. It seems the new digital lenses are much bigger and have more elements. Look at the manual focus Summicrons versus the autofocus Summicron SLs. The new Panasonic 50mmm is also huge and heavy.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Folks, I am the OP. I really appreciate all the replies, but... from what I am reading most folks seem to be answering the wrong question. I am NOT concerned about using the 85/1.4 with digital.

My ONLY concern is which lens will be BETTER for FILM. From all the replies, it sounds to me that the newer G is NOT going to be less sharp, but someone did mention the boken is better on the older lens. considering the price difference, that sounds like a winner to me.

Am I missing something?

The other issue is the G lens has no aperture ring, which excludes its use on many older film cameras. I much prefer the rendering of the 85 1.4D, they don't call it "The creme machine" for nothing!

 

[Nodda Duma]

To answer the OP’s question, the G version has no aperture ring, so it won’t be practically useable on a manual camera like Nikon FE, FM, F3, etc. but I think with your F5 that’s not a limitation.

For us luddites with FM3a’s and older, we are limited to older D designs for the most part anyways. That said there are exceptions. I just went out on a limb and picked up a brand new Samyang 85 f/1.4 lens for my Nikon FM3a which I’m really happy with and it does have the aperture ring. Especially considering the $270 price tag. I chose it over the Nikon 85 f/1.4 D-lens. It’s the first absolutely new lens I bought...my other lenses are at least 20 years old. It has good reviews for digital full frame cameras esp considering its price tag. Build quality is great...definitely feels like a much more expensive lens.

Your F5 can run G lenses NP. Optically there was no real lens design update during the D to G transition from what I recall, but they might have updated the design in the intervening 20-odd years to accommodate better manufacturing processes. Like anything else, they’d have to have a real good reason to update a really good design due to cost of changing the tooling on a production line. Changing the back focus to design for mirrorless cameras would be an example.

The rough explanation I heard regarding lenses "made for digital" was that such lenses were optimized so that light would strike the sensor more straight-on rather than at an angle. This is because, I presume, the pixels are not as sensitive to light striking them from an angle, whereas with a film emulsion it doesn't matter.

This effect may be more pronounced with APS-sized sensors than full frame. I would expect Nikon DX lenses to be "optimized for digital" rather than FX or the D lenses.

Alternately, this could all be hogwash.

I can say with authority that it’s hogwash, having designed optics since the start of the digital era. Nothing against you, of course.. it’s an internet myth or misconstruing of a minor technical detail. As a linear system, the lens has no idea what the imaging media is, so the light strikes both imaging media the same. I speculated on a recent podcast interview that the myth may have sprung from the description of pixels as quantum wells, which makes one think of a water well with some “depth” that needs to be “filled”. That is, however, a failure of analogy. The focal plane array is flat with no structure and the light-sensitive silicon detector starts at the surface.

I do have to accurately model the glass cover plate for fast optics (f/2 or faster) and small (3um or less pitch) to ensure the chromatic effect and focus shift is corrected in the lens, but the effect is minimal and doesn’t come into play with the scenarios we’re talking about here. With *really* fast optics — f/1.2 or faster — I also model microlenses if the FPA has them.

But those are straightforward. My bigger concern with what’s going on at the FPA is stray light effects, so I pull in solid models of the FPA mechanical structure as we design the barrel to minimize stray light. Again, not really a concern for an application like daytime consumer photography.

As far as older vs. newer version of the OP’s lens for digital: The DOF is not a function of the design itself per se but rather a function of first-order parameters (focal length, f/#) so there is no difference from 85 / 1.4 to 85 / 1.4. What the OP might be thinking of is blur diameter, which wouldn’t have changed... From what I understand this particular lens is the same design D to G, like for Nikon’s 50mm f/1.8. Great lenses, there wasn’t really a need to tweak the design for the F-mount i.e. same back focus as the world shifted to digital.

It’s worth reading up on why exactly film loses the resolution battle. (Not necessarily because of the size of grains...the average grain size of my dry plate emulsion is ~0.5 microns, 1/10th the size of a pixel). Once you have that figured out you’ll realize that pre-digital the lens designers were working towards very similar resolution requirements as post-digital so the limitation is often in the media and not the optics.

Edit: Speaking of film resolution, here’s a good article on all the nuances of grain: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf

 

[trendland]

The rough explanation I heard regarding lenses "made for digital" was that such lenses were optimized so that light would strike the sensor more straight-on rather than at an angle. This is because, I presume, the pixels are not as sensitive to light striking them from an angle, whereas with a film emulsion it doesn't matter.

This effect may be more pronounced with APS-sized sensors than full frame. I would expect Nikon DX lenses to be "optimized for digital" rather than FX or the D lenses.

Alternately, this could all be hogwash.

Not true Theo : The theory of directed light is such kind of marketing nonsense manufacturers
stated to argument the need of other optical design!
I guess you would need much more energy to transform wafe lenghts from light in a parallel
(telecentric) direction - most manufacturer brochures told digital photographers 2005 - 2010 -
the best camera batterie can't serve with 1000 load circles at once!
But a kind of portable "naquaddah reactor" may of course provide enough energy to transform
light into all conditions / directions / wafes forms - you and your digital sensor feel fine with
(E=m/100.000*C²) !

Seriously : this is a normal optic design :

A so called "telecentric" design is the following :

But this is more a theoretical describtion from simplified graphic!

Light wafes can't go such straight!

In any way such lens design is expensive - from my point a minority (8% of wafes) march
staight through a cheap Nikon/Canon APS C AF lens (the rest is undisciplined and is more
stolling on the road to sensor)!
But a good lens coating is not enough reasoning today for a complete new lens series with different lens bajonet (Olympus micro four thirds).......?

with regards

 

[trendland]

Folks, I am the OP. I really appreciate all the replies, but... from what I am reading most folks seem to be answering the wrong question. I am NOT concerned about using the 85/1.4 with digital.

My ONLY concern is which lens will be BETTER for FILM. From all the replies, it sounds to me that the newer G is NOT going to be less sharp, but someone did mention the boken is better on the older lens. considering the price difference, that sounds like a winner to me.

Am I missing something?

OK .....understand you just need best lens for film.......hmm ?

Why not.....then you should buy best lens (but you should forget Nikon AF) :

...easy going = Zeiss Planar 85mm f 1.4 Nikon ZF !

with regards

PS : realy = best lens !!!!

 

[trendland]

I can say with authority that it’s hogwash, having designed optics since the start of the digital era. Nothing against you, of course.. it’s an internet myth or misconstruing of a minor technical detail. As a linear system, the lens has no idea what the imaging media is, so the light strikes both imaging media the same...

That is absolute unfair to state Nodda Duma so ceep imediately calm!!!!! !!!!!
( you total forget the A.I. - factor of modern digital optimized systems)!
!

Once you have that figured out you’ll realize that pre-digital the lens designers were working towards very similar resolution requirements as post-digital so the limitation is often in the media and not the optics.
[/QUOTE]

....so would you agree that the limiting factor at last (beside the physics) the space of the media
(the squere) is ? But where is the squere with new sensors? New Nikon/Canon 120 MP came up with -10% sized squere to full frame?

with regards

 

[Paul Howell]

So when Konica Minolta came out with D lens, just a marketing ploy, no real difference between the D and older lens? I don't shoot much color film anymore, but when I have and use D lens on Minolta 9 I don't see any difference in color. Can say the same with Sigma, the Sigma 50 1.4 (Older Version but post film) worked just fine with color film on SA9.

 

[jim10219]

...I just went out on a limb and picked up a brand new Samyang 85 f/1.4 lens for my Nikon FM3a which I’m really happy with and it does have the aperture ring. Especially considering the $270 price tag. I chose it over the Nikon 85 f/1.4 D-lens. It’s the first absolutely new lens I bought...my other lenses are at least 20 years old. It has good reviews for digital full frame cameras esp considering its price tag. Build quality is great...definitely feels like a much more expensive lens...

I bought one of those Samyang 85/1.4 lenses (Canon version) for my wife a year ago. It's an absolutely phenomenal lens! It's probably the best 85/1.4 I've ever used as far as image quality goes. Honestly, this would be my pick over any of the Nikon or Canon offerings out there. In my opinion, you have to step up to the Zeiss Otus to beat it.

 

[trendland]

So when Konica Minolta came out with D lens, just a marketing ploy, no real difference between the D and older lens? I don't shoot much color film anymore, but when I have and use D lens on Minolta 9 I don't see any difference in color. Can say the same with Sigma, the Sigma 50 1.4 (Older Version but post film) worked just fine with color film on SA9.

Your profit is : that the lens is new Paul - pls. do not forget

with regards

PS : If the lens is new the mechanic is more smooth!!

 

[Nodda Duma]

Trendland, I mean no disrespect at all but let me be blunt: I seriously can't understand what the hell you're writing 90% of the time. For the sake of effective communication could you please convert comments in your native language into google translate and paste the English version in until you've gotten better with grammar? I would love to respond to your comments but I can't tell what you're trying to say. You may want to do the same converting back to your native language because you're missing the full meaning of what you read judging by what I think you mean by your response to my comments.

I bought one of those Samyang 85/1.4 lenses (Canon version) for my wife a year ago. It's an absolutely phenomenal lens! It's probably the best 85/1.4 I've ever used as far as image quality goes. Honestly, this would be my pick over any of the Nikon or Canon offerings out there. In my opinion, you have to step up to the Zeiss Otus to beat it.

Great to know! Images looked great on the ground glass but I haven't developed the roll of film I shot with it so I won't know for a couple more days.

So when Konica Minolta came out with D lens, just a marketing ploy, no real difference between the D and older lens? I don't shoot much color film anymore, but when I have and use D lens on Minolta 9 I don't see any difference in color. Can say the same with Sigma, the Sigma 50 1.4 (Older Version but post film) worked just fine with color film on SA9.

Paul, my comment about the D- to G- transition only applied to the Nikon lenses that were the topic of discussion. It's fairly well known that Nikon didn't update (or even need to update) many of their really good optical designs and wouldn't do so unless there was a business case for it. I'm sure other companies would do the same, and any that had designs that were "marginal" for film (i.e. relaxed sharpness requirements wide open to make cheaper optics) would certainly need to update them for digital. If that makes sense.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[trendland]

In my opinion, you have to step up to the Zeiss Otus to beat it.

The Otus is a nice lens - but look at the pricing - let us be realistic!

with regards

 

[trendland]

Trendland, I mean no disrespect at all but let me be blunt: I seriously can't understand what the hell you're writing 90% of the time. For the sake of effective communication could you please convert comments in your native language into google translate and paste the English version in until you've gotten better with grammar? I would love to respond to your comments but I can't tell what you're trying to say.

Nodda Duma : A.I. = Artificial Intelligence!

It was a joke = new digital optimized lenses can "learn" so "the lens have an idea what image media is at the right time" !

with regards

PS : The squere of the media (like we know from film) is at the end the limiting factor with
sensors (you described the size of grain from your dry plate in comparison of ~ 5microns (pixel
size/dimentions!)
From my theory at the final end it is the size of sensor (32mmx43mm for example) what is limiting
the resolution! Like 4,5x6 format is limiting film! More details/more resolution = the need of higher
format!
But in oposite from my theory: modern digital comes smaller sized?
Example = new full frame Nikon/Canon with 120Mp sensors - but just -10% sized compared
with normal full frame 24x36!
Yeah - this is not the digital section - therefore a last sentence :
That would be the same like Kodak would show best results in regards of all parameters of film
characteristics in super8 Format?
(thinking about the size of IPhone sensors)???? Trendland needs new theory!

 

[faberryman]

Trendland, I mean no disrespect at all but let me be blunt: I seriously can't understand what the hell you're writing 90% of the time. For the sake of effective communication could you please convert comments in your native language into google translate and paste the English version in until you've gotten better with grammar? I would love to respond to your comments but I can't tell what you're trying to say. You may want to do the same converting back to your native language because you're missing the full meaning of what you read judging by what I think you mean by your response to my comments.

It's a fool's errand to try and figure out what he is talking about. Just skip over his posts. They are gibberish.

 

[silveror0]

It's a fool's errand to try and figure out what he is talking about. Just skip over his posts. They are gibberish.

Or, like me, just put him on IGNORE and not waste time trying to understand the gibberish.