Hello Folks! I'm sitting here looking at the ad for the new Simgma 50mm 1.4 Art lens, and am wondering if this, as well as the brave new offerings from Leica and others, lose something on film compared to older lenses? Thaks for any info.
Will Digitally-Optimized Lenses work as well on Film as Trad. Analog Lenses?
-
A
- Thread starter chip j
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy 120/220 backing paper
- Started by MCB18
-
Found Konica AR 24mm or 28mm lens
- Started by blee1996
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Pan-Tilt Head
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
The focal length and the image size are not the same for 35mm and digital. Often, the rear of the digital lens will block the mirror and the image will be cropped (or vignetted) to the size of the digital sensor.
Not good.
PE
Not good.
PE
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,119
- Format
- 35mm
Not true.Look at Nikon lenses for film cameras and FX DSLRs
The effect of any lens being designed for a certain format on the chances to use on another formats is obvious.
I assume this is not the question raised in this thread.
In analog photography the MTF of a lens is designed to be as high as possible (economical issues aside).
In digital photography the MTF hast just to be limited in certain frequencies to avoid degradation of the final image.
Another issue could be the basic lens design in order to gain a small angle of the exit cone, due to the susceptibility of a sensor to shallow rays. In contrast to film.
I assume this is not the question raised in this thread.
In analog photography the MTF of a lens is designed to be as high as possible (economical issues aside).
In digital photography the MTF hast just to be limited in certain frequencies to avoid degradation of the final image.
Another issue could be the basic lens design in order to gain a small angle of the exit cone, due to the susceptibility of a sensor to shallow rays. In contrast to film.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Sigma Art is a Full Frame Lens (or in the analog world, a regular 35mm lens). Only things like Canon's EF-S hit mirrors, Nikon's DX lenses have the smaller image circle but they fit fine on FF/Film bodies (even my Sigma 8-16mm works as a great wide angle covering the full film area of my EOS 3 at 16mm, don't need that Tokina 17mm anymore)
In the context of this and others in the new breed of 'digitally optimised' lenses (which even include the newest lenses for Phase One / Mamiya 645AF), all it means is:
- More and better coatings to reduce reflections from the sensor's shiny surface.
This is never a bad thing on film nor digital (except if you're the kind of person who prefers the 'low contrast' look of Single Coated lenses, in which case, buy an old lens or a CV S.C.). I highly doubt a coating that works well on digital will work worse (than an older coating) on a film.
- Extremely high resolving power for the newest (and future) 36MP+ sensors
It's not like you need that high resolution on film, unless you're shooting techpan or some other stupidly high resolution film. It may not mean much shooting Delta3200 in Rodinal but you might see a slight improvement shooting Velvia 50 or similar.
- Nodal point is further away from the film/sensor plane, so the light strikes it more perpendicularly.
This is the most important for new 'digital lenses', especially wide-angles on rangfinders/mirrorless. Just google to see what happens, for example, when you put a Cosina Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Skopar on a digital (Ken Rockwell has some good examples). Colour shift in the corners each way from Sunday, becaues the light refracts going through the glass in front of the sensor at an acute angle.
A 'digitally optimised' wide angle will have the nodal point further from the film/sensor, to keep the light rays going through said glass more perpendicular, so less colour shift. In short, more like an SLR lens, bigger and heavier etc. But perfectly usable on film just the same.
In short, yes they'll work fine. With film you just won't get to see all the benefits of the extra engineering in it as much as with digital, with the only downsides the extra price, size and weight.
In the context of this and others in the new breed of 'digitally optimised' lenses (which even include the newest lenses for Phase One / Mamiya 645AF), all it means is:
- More and better coatings to reduce reflections from the sensor's shiny surface.
This is never a bad thing on film nor digital (except if you're the kind of person who prefers the 'low contrast' look of Single Coated lenses, in which case, buy an old lens or a CV S.C.). I highly doubt a coating that works well on digital will work worse (than an older coating) on a film.
- Extremely high resolving power for the newest (and future) 36MP+ sensors
It's not like you need that high resolution on film, unless you're shooting techpan or some other stupidly high resolution film. It may not mean much shooting Delta3200 in Rodinal but you might see a slight improvement shooting Velvia 50 or similar.
- Nodal point is further away from the film/sensor plane, so the light strikes it more perpendicularly.
This is the most important for new 'digital lenses', especially wide-angles on rangfinders/mirrorless. Just google to see what happens, for example, when you put a Cosina Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Skopar on a digital (Ken Rockwell has some good examples). Colour shift in the corners each way from Sunday, becaues the light refracts going through the glass in front of the sensor at an acute angle.
A 'digitally optimised' wide angle will have the nodal point further from the film/sensor, to keep the light rays going through said glass more perpendicular, so less colour shift. In short, more like an SLR lens, bigger and heavier etc. But perfectly usable on film just the same.
In short, yes they'll work fine. With film you just won't get to see all the benefits of the extra engineering in it as much as with digital, with the only downsides the extra price, size and weight.
Due to the way resolution is transfered, a high resolution of any link in the image forming chain is beneficial, not withstanding that other links yield lesser resolution.
I don't know about Sigma Art lens, but I do have modern Nikon line of lenses. They include 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 VRII, and 105mmVR. I also have 50mm 1.8D, and 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0 (I think?) First 3 lenses are made well after the digital revolution fully took place, and last two are "classic" designs.
They all work very well on my F-100. They also work well on my D800, except I see some limitations with last two lens, but we are not talking about digital bodies, so I won't go into that.
One thing to watch out for "digitally optimized" designs are distortion characteristics. Since they are so easy to correct digitally, I think manufacturers tend to put it last in their design parameters - sharpness being the highest priority. Barrel and pin cushion distortions are not easy to correct on film and more complex distortions are impossible to correct.
I don't think it'll be an issue with prime lenses, though.
I've never heard of mirror hitting the back of lens issue, except for really exotic ones like old fish eyes.
They all work very well on my F-100. They also work well on my D800, except I see some limitations with last two lens, but we are not talking about digital bodies, so I won't go into that.
One thing to watch out for "digitally optimized" designs are distortion characteristics. Since they are so easy to correct digitally, I think manufacturers tend to put it last in their design parameters - sharpness being the highest priority. Barrel and pin cushion distortions are not easy to correct on film and more complex distortions are impossible to correct.
I don't think it'll be an issue with prime lenses, though.
I've never heard of mirror hitting the back of lens issue, except for really exotic ones like old fish eyes.
I have a box full of Nikon film and digital lenses. Most all film and digital lenses do not interchange. They either vignette (digital on film) or hit the prism (film on digital). BTDT, but you do what you want or what works. I've given up on that route due to the problems.
PE
PE
what might be true for Nikon may not be true for other brands. I know that the Minolta/Sony mount lenses do interchange, except with the caveat that those lenses intended for APS-C sensors only will vignette severely. So, depending on specific mount, YMMV.
I think the good Dr above hit the nail on the head.
I think the good Dr above hit the nail on the head.
?
Did you see the MTF curve on their website? Looks pretty impressive compared to my favorite Planar 1.4 (though the cycle/mm is not listed for the Sigma MTF graph).
When shooting film the main advantage for a 13-element lens like this (over a 7 element Planar) is going to be improved resolution in the corners. If the light falloff when wide open is less than the Planar one can only guess; no information on this is posted on the Sigma website.
Sorry for the link to a digital review site, but Dead Link Removed is a comparison between the Art and ZE Planar (same as C/Y Planar as far as I know). Vignetting looks almost exactly the same at f/1.4, the Sigma's ahead at f/2, the planar is winning at f/2.8, and then I got bored.
As for tkamiya's comment about distortion: yes, with a but.
Companies producing their own lenses for their own cameras (ie Olympus and even Leica), can and do fix lens' shortcomings in software processing, ie the aforementioned colour shift of wide-angles on digital bodies gets fixed digitally (to Leica's credit, they've made formulæ for older lenses that were designed for use with film that shift badly on digital bodies).
Others (Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji I'm looking in your direction) may even, as mentioned, put distortion at the bottom of the list of design goals, and then fix it in firmware, even in the RAW files.
(Aside: you wanna see a digital forum explode? Go blame the latest camera for cooking the raw files to make up for bad lens design, ask if it's a bad or deceiving thing to do, then grab some popcorn and watch the fanboys tear each other apart).
In the case of Sigma / Tamron / RokiBowYang / Zeiss, they don't have that luxury, and have to make the best lenses to work with every body without any help from software (which includes film, even if not on purpose).
Every lens design is different some won't cover a large sensor as true for 16x20 shift lens or zoom on digital sensors.
MTF is not useful unless
you use a tripod or
have VR
or good technique e.g. hang on to lamp post
If you are going to burn high lights a single coated(SC) …lens will hang on to them and also
pastel colours
prefash shadows
all three adaptivelly - as needed
That is why Cosina offer either for some lenses their BWC is a photog who uses his own lenses - Big White Chief, they sell a lotta SC...
MTF is not useful unless
you use a tripod or
have VR
or good technique e.g. hang on to lamp post
If you are going to burn high lights a single coated(SC) …lens will hang on to them and also
pastel colours
prefash shadows
all three adaptivelly - as needed
That is why Cosina offer either for some lenses their BWC is a photog who uses his own lenses - Big White Chief, they sell a lotta SC...
In most discussions on lens characteristics here at Apug we have it about MTF, though often not knowing.
Yes, the comment above is true about my only testing Nikon. IDK how others perform, but the news at EK was that only APS and Digital lenses were interchangeable from an optics standpoint (back then) as they were designed for the same frame size. You see, APS and digital sensors had the same footprint at that time. That was one of the design goals.
PE
PE
It's probably the best if OP inquires the manufacturer for compatibility. Assuming it mounts and electronics/mechanics communicate, I cannot imagine there would be any material issue that can readily be observed.
There are a lot of mechanical and electronic issues that have changed the landscape in all automatic systems over the years. It is rather messy to figure out which goes with which, but there are some conversions available.
PE
PE
You assume (wrongly) that 'digital lenses' are all designed for smaller frame sizes than 24x36mm, and that they all intrude into the body more than classic film camera lenses.
Sigma and Tamron both make SOME 'for digital' lenses with smaller image circles, but NONE of them intrude into the body any more than film camera lensees...they use the identical EF mount for Canon on all their EOS compatible lenses (not the EF-S mount which prevents mounting on EF bodies); while these smaller-image-circle lenses vignette on FF cameras, they pose no mechanical interference by intruding into the body closer to the focal plane.
Someone already pointed out the 'more perpenicular' angles of light rays on 'for digital' wide angle lenses, so as to minimize chromatic abberations of different light frequencies at considerable angles to the digital sensor. But this has no deleterious effect on usage with film.
So a lens for a full frame digital will be ok on a film camera.
But if you can live with the larger abberations of an old single coated lens you can capture a higher dynamic range scene with an analogue camera or a digital camera. At the risk of flare and spurious images.
Some of the old lenses are increasing in cost disproportionatly.
But if you can live with the larger abberations of an old single coated lens you can capture a higher dynamic range scene with an analogue camera or a digital camera. At the risk of flare and spurious images.
Some of the old lenses are increasing in cost disproportionatly.
MTF test is meaningless.
First of all , all MTF tests done when lens set to infinity. No MTF test tells how contrast performs at a portrait.
Second , you can get exactly same MTF result from two different lenses but the internal multi element aberration difference effect the signature.
What is signature , when you use a Leica lens on human subjects , lens aberration internal balance , restores the bad looking skin. It turns especially young kids , skin turns to seem like a porcelain. Lens design have two ways , first you design in a computer without asking specific aberrations from the software but a reasonable design in short time , you get a japanese lens.
Second , you spend years to understand the characteristics of the lens and than know what can be asked from computer and you get the design and you spend time to develop new glasses from the supplier and altogether , you get a good lens at infinity or whatever the distance , light temperature , available light.
And the low light performance depends on partial refractive glasses and this is a whole other story.
When you buy Leica,
at daylight , it performs like platin print and grades are so long , at humans , faces , hands, legs are like porcelain , strong colors are stronger than any other lens , there are many elegant color combinations you would not see or notice with bare eye or any other camera , resolution is so high , you find an other photograph in your photograph and you can enlarge and print , there are plastic colors , fluorescent colors , textile colors , wall paints , car paints and all synthetic colors looks elegant and separated
How does it do , MTF Color test , nobody does that test at magazines or your Ken Rockwell doesnt know that.
When the sun set and lights went off , lens performs wild and thin negatives turns in to mum light portrait paintings of rembrandt.
If you want to understand the painting art or if you like the colors or apart world textures , if you like anatomy , if you want to make a art like da vinci and rembrandt and vermeer with single lens , you have to buy old new leica lens.
Nobody can do this at 21th century. May be modern Leica lenses lacks it , I dont know. But a summicron or summitar is there , lt cheaper than your investment in to hasselblad and as darko saric says everybody should use a leica one time in their life.
No your japanese lens cant do that. And all mtf tests are for idiots.
First of all , all MTF tests done when lens set to infinity. No MTF test tells how contrast performs at a portrait.
Second , you can get exactly same MTF result from two different lenses but the internal multi element aberration difference effect the signature.
What is signature , when you use a Leica lens on human subjects , lens aberration internal balance , restores the bad looking skin. It turns especially young kids , skin turns to seem like a porcelain. Lens design have two ways , first you design in a computer without asking specific aberrations from the software but a reasonable design in short time , you get a japanese lens.
Second , you spend years to understand the characteristics of the lens and than know what can be asked from computer and you get the design and you spend time to develop new glasses from the supplier and altogether , you get a good lens at infinity or whatever the distance , light temperature , available light.
And the low light performance depends on partial refractive glasses and this is a whole other story.
When you buy Leica,
at daylight , it performs like platin print and grades are so long , at humans , faces , hands, legs are like porcelain , strong colors are stronger than any other lens , there are many elegant color combinations you would not see or notice with bare eye or any other camera , resolution is so high , you find an other photograph in your photograph and you can enlarge and print , there are plastic colors , fluorescent colors , textile colors , wall paints , car paints and all synthetic colors looks elegant and separated
How does it do , MTF Color test , nobody does that test at magazines or your Ken Rockwell doesnt know that.
When the sun set and lights went off , lens performs wild and thin negatives turns in to mum light portrait paintings of rembrandt.
If you want to understand the painting art or if you like the colors or apart world textures , if you like anatomy , if you want to make a art like da vinci and rembrandt and vermeer with single lens , you have to buy old new leica lens.
Nobody can do this at 21th century. May be modern Leica lenses lacks it , I dont know. But a summicron or summitar is there , lt cheaper than your investment in to hasselblad and as darko saric says everybody should use a leica one time in their life.
No your japanese lens cant do that. And all mtf tests are for idiots.
Funny, when I underexpose with my Leica / Dual Range summicron I just get annoyingly thin, flat, bland negatives that I don't bother wasting time on.
There seems to be some severe misunderstanding of the market place in this thread.
35mm & APS inter-changeable lens film cameras use lenses of different coverage and the same goes for the smaller SLR digital sensors used by many manufacturres and the full frame (35mm equivalent) sensors using the same lens mount.
Lenses are marked clearly and as photographers we need to be fully aware of what our lenses are capable of. This is actually quite a lot more difficult when you move up formats but LF people take more care
My main Canon fit Tamron lenses happen to be full frame but I made a conscious decision to buy a an EFS 55-250mm IS zoom knowing I couldn't use it with film. I already have a great Vivitar 70-210mm S1 lens for film use with my Pentax kit.
Ian
35mm & APS inter-changeable lens film cameras use lenses of different coverage and the same goes for the smaller SLR digital sensors used by many manufacturres and the full frame (35mm equivalent) sensors using the same lens mount.
Lenses are marked clearly and as photographers we need to be fully aware of what our lenses are capable of. This is actually quite a lot more difficult when you move up formats but LF people take more care
My main Canon fit Tamron lenses happen to be full frame but I made a conscious decision to buy a an EFS 55-250mm IS zoom knowing I couldn't use it with film. I already have a great Vivitar 70-210mm S1 lens for film use with my Pentax kit.
Ian
Yes , dont waste time but I wasted time to you.
I assumed nothing but the fact that I had problems with Nikon Digital and Film lenses not being interchangeable. I am quite well aware of the different sizes of sensors out there for Digital cameras and I know the difference between them, APS and 35mm.
The thing is, I had problems with Nikon equipment and it goes beyond format (or size). The coupling of the AF, the electronic contacts and the functionality of these lenses differ and cause one to pause (perhaps at a critical moment) to insure that the lens has been set properly.
And this leads me to suggest that the OP look closely at what he wants to buy or is buying to avoid a few problems down the road. And, many of the comments on the optics are right on here due to the ability of Digital cameras to make some corrections in software that Analog cameras cannot. Another factor to consider.
PE
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
With Canon and Zeiss ZE and ZS lenses, as long as they're full frame, I've had no problems. If anything, the color fringing problems associated with digital sensors has driven the manufacturers to produce better-corrected lenses that perform even better on film.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |