Thank you for the link.
Will Digitally-Optimized Lenses work as well on Film as Trad. Analog Lenses?
-
A
- Thread starter chip j
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Konica AS2(no meter)
- Started by Acere
-
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
Forum statistics
Thank you for the link.
I'm very curious now.... Inter-changability between newer bodies and various generations of Nikon's mounts are fairly well known. There is a very good summary here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm Nikon also includes lens compatibility information in owners' manuals.
What combination you had that ought to work but didn't?
The Micro Nikkor comes to mind as do the standard zooms that come with the cameras. Those cameras tested were the 2020, Pronea and D90 using the "original glass" and several others including the Micro Nikkor (I have 2 of these, one for the 2020 era and one for the digital era).
PE
What Micro-Nikkor is that? Non-Ai, AI/S or AF?
You have 3 bodies that are the following:
F-501 (N2020) is an early AF and will accept any AI/S lens made since 1977 or a simple screw AF lens.
Pronea is an APS SLR and works better with IX lenses. Manual lens don't work. IX lenses don't work in any other type of camera.
D90 is a DX body and should work with all AF lenses, but not AI/S manual focus lenses.
Hope that helps you.
You have 3 bodies that are the following:
F-501 (N2020) is an early AF and will accept any AI/S lens made since 1977 or a simple screw AF lens.
Pronea is an APS SLR and works better with IX lenses. Manual lens don't work. IX lenses don't work in any other type of camera.
D90 is a DX body and should work with all AF lenses, but not AI/S manual focus lenses.
Hope that helps you.
I have not tried this in years. All I can tell you is that I had severe problems. Rear elements hanging up the mirror and vignetting. All cameras take the same bayonet mount but with different depths of lens protruding from the back, different AF mechanisms and different numbers of contacts.
I don't need help at this point. I know that all Pronea and D90 lenses seem to work ok and I keep them all segregated by camera bag/body.
Thanks anyhow.
PE
I don't need help at this point. I know that all Pronea and D90 lenses seem to work ok and I keep them all segregated by camera bag/body.
Thanks anyhow.
PE
Simply put the fundamental characteristic of an analog lens tends to be that the light rays as they exit the rear element spread out to form the image on the film. All the corrections for distortion or aberrations are done before the light hits the film as part of the lens design. In the corners in particular the light rays can hit the film at a very oblique angle.
A digital sensor has photo sites, the individual light gathering lenses, that are best at collecting light projected directly at them. Rays of light hitting them at an oblique angle, as would be the case with an analog lens used on a digital camera, can cause 'smearing' of detail in the corners for example, as the light rays skim across the top of the light gathering sensors. So to compensate the fundamental characteristic of a lens designed for a digital camera is that the light rays exit the rear element as parallel as possible to each other and hit the sensor square on, this is a telecentric designed lens. To allow the lens to be as telecentric as possible, and often to help in reducing the physical size of the lens, corrections for distortion etc. are done in the cameras software, the Firmware.
So ignoring the simplistic concern of 'is the image circle projected by the lens big enough to cover the film' we will find that some digital lenses will work better than others. There is no rule that can be laid down, because the design of the lens is often matched to the design of the sensor. And over time as sensor design changes so does the lens design. Some of these lenses, the simple designs especially like tele lenses, will be fine on film cameras all other things taken into consideration. But some may show some distortion, maybe vignetting, and chromatic aberrations, etc. and of course there is no firmware to correct this.
Steve
A digital sensor has photo sites, the individual light gathering lenses, that are best at collecting light projected directly at them. Rays of light hitting them at an oblique angle, as would be the case with an analog lens used on a digital camera, can cause 'smearing' of detail in the corners for example, as the light rays skim across the top of the light gathering sensors. So to compensate the fundamental characteristic of a lens designed for a digital camera is that the light rays exit the rear element as parallel as possible to each other and hit the sensor square on, this is a telecentric designed lens. To allow the lens to be as telecentric as possible, and often to help in reducing the physical size of the lens, corrections for distortion etc. are done in the cameras software, the Firmware.
So ignoring the simplistic concern of 'is the image circle projected by the lens big enough to cover the film' we will find that some digital lenses will work better than others. There is no rule that can be laid down, because the design of the lens is often matched to the design of the sensor. And over time as sensor design changes so does the lens design. Some of these lenses, the simple designs especially like tele lenses, will be fine on film cameras all other things taken into consideration. But some may show some distortion, maybe vignetting, and chromatic aberrations, etc. and of course there is no firmware to correct this.
Steve
Last edited by a moderator:
Very well put Steve. Thanks for the additional information. I am not an expert in this as you appear to be but I know when things are not quite right.
PE
PE
Not telecentric design. But retro-focus design.
I can't comment on other mounts, but all my recent good Nikon FX lenses perform equally well on film and digital. These include the 60/2.8 AF-S Micro-Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR, 14-24/2.8 AF-S, 80-400 AF-S, 24-120 AF-S VR and a few more. Previous generation lenses that are equally good include 20/2.8 AF-D, 70-180 Micro-Nikkor, 200/4 AF-D Micro-Nikkor, 300/2.8 AF-S, 500/4 AF-S and 85/1.4 AF-D. I use F100, F5 and F75 bodies for AF-S VR lenses, and have no limit on their functionality. Arguably, life has never been this good for film photography.
IMO,'digital'lenses are nothing but a marketing hype to discredit older lenses and get us to buy new ones;I'm using 40-year-old Nikkorrs with latest DSLRs and it works just fine.Keep your money and try the old ones first.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2013
- Messages
- 198
- Format
- 35mm
There are many aspects to 'optimization' to digital. One issue the lens designers had to deal with its the difference between a film emulsion and the digital sensor.
Simplified, a film emulsion consist of light sensitive crystals. In a color film there are several layers of crystals, each layer sensitive to different wavelengths. A sensor is (generally) built up by a light sensitive semiconductor, a Bayer filter and an anti-alias filter. The latter is often left out on middle format and Nikon are getting away from it also on small format and other crop formats.
It turns out that the combined layers of a digital sensor design are physically thicker than a film emulsion. Thus, it is more critical for digital that the light hit the sensor at an angle more close to perpendicular than for film.
In general, a lens designed for film might perform less well especially in corners of art the edges on a digital camera.
I believe this is what you refer to when you mention 'optimized for digital'. This will obviously not hurt the performance on film apart from that the lenses are often larger and heavier.
Groet,
Jonas
Skickat från min GT-P5210 via Tapatalk
Simplified, a film emulsion consist of light sensitive crystals. In a color film there are several layers of crystals, each layer sensitive to different wavelengths. A sensor is (generally) built up by a light sensitive semiconductor, a Bayer filter and an anti-alias filter. The latter is often left out on middle format and Nikon are getting away from it also on small format and other crop formats.
It turns out that the combined layers of a digital sensor design are physically thicker than a film emulsion. Thus, it is more critical for digital that the light hit the sensor at an angle more close to perpendicular than for film.
In general, a lens designed for film might perform less well especially in corners of art the edges on a digital camera.
I believe this is what you refer to when you mention 'optimized for digital'. This will obviously not hurt the performance on film apart from that the lenses are often larger and heavier.
Groet,
Jonas
Skickat från min GT-P5210 via Tapatalk
But the OP asked about both a particular lens and Leica lenses.
All Leica M lenses are full frame even the 28mm Elmarit /2.8 aspheric (which some say was m8 optimised) is better in corners than its pre digital predecessor.
The modern M's do have better focus shift & rangefinder tracking which is needed for the digital sensor but helps with film as well. (There have been similar problems with film cameras since the f/1 5cm from '79. Due to bodies not being maintained properly.)
The Cosina LTM and M lenses are also full frame though there is vignetting with ultra wides eg the 12mm rectaliner is good for its street $ and better on film even with best optimisation, - they are all film lenses, but work well with digital.
Not all LTM and M lenses are suitable for all digital or LTM cameras... some will foul badly, check before you buy.
All Leica M lenses are full frame even the 28mm Elmarit /2.8 aspheric (which some say was m8 optimised) is better in corners than its pre digital predecessor.
The modern M's do have better focus shift & rangefinder tracking which is needed for the digital sensor but helps with film as well. (There have been similar problems with film cameras since the f/1 5cm from '79. Due to bodies not being maintained properly.)
The Cosina LTM and M lenses are also full frame though there is vignetting with ultra wides eg the 12mm rectaliner is good for its street $ and better on film even with best optimisation, - they are all film lenses, but work well with digital.
Not all LTM and M lenses are suitable for all digital or LTM cameras... some will foul badly, check before you buy.
I think this thread is becoming over complicated a bit.
My experience, as I stated earlier, is that all modern lenses work well for film bodies as well as digital except for distortion. I have D and G type here and they all work well. Whatever other problem that may exist, it's well beyond my ability to detect them. Even distortion can be worked around easily in most situations. Unless you are working with horizon or something very linear and long, it's not all that noticeable.
I don't know what Nikon body you have but it's pain for me to focus manually on auto-focus bodies. So I don't have any lens old enough to NOT have auto-focus. Therefore, I don't look at older lenses that you may run into various issues. (and obviously, these are not digitally optimized)
Another thing to consider is, Nikon still sells F-6 as new. Almost all auto focus lenses are "digitally optimized" now. That should say something as well.
My experience, as I stated earlier, is that all modern lenses work well for film bodies as well as digital except for distortion. I have D and G type here and they all work well. Whatever other problem that may exist, it's well beyond my ability to detect them. Even distortion can be worked around easily in most situations. Unless you are working with horizon or something very linear and long, it's not all that noticeable.
I don't know what Nikon body you have but it's pain for me to focus manually on auto-focus bodies. So I don't have any lens old enough to NOT have auto-focus. Therefore, I don't look at older lenses that you may run into various issues. (and obviously, these are not digitally optimized)
Another thing to consider is, Nikon still sells F-6 as new. Almost all auto focus lenses are "digitally optimized" now. That should say something as well.
I shoot a lot of street architecture, so linear distortion is something I try to avoid. My MF Nikkors 20 3.5 & 28 3.5 have too much, and my 85 2.0 is not swell in this regard. My favorite combo is my N80w/28-105 AF Nikkor-very low distortion except @ 28mm. Also my 70-300 VR is good.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,746
- Format
- 35mm
When I have some fun using my Nikon Pronea S I mostly use the 20-60 IX Nikkor. I find the 20-60 to be very sharp. The only drawback is that it's slow. This is true of all of the IX Nikkors. When I used the Pronea S more often I liked to use 800 speed film. It allowed me to shoot under more lighting conditions and also extended the range of the built-in flash. If image stabilization had made its way into these APS cameras this would have made the use of the slow lenses and slower film more practical. Nikon warned APS sensor DSLR camera users against using the IX Nikkors because the rear of the IX Nikkors extends back too far and would damage the mirror. I don't use any Nikon DSLRs and would not be tempted to try using them with IX Nikkors if I did. I have used a 55/2.8 AIS Nikkor with the Pronea S in manual mode with good results. I am skeptical about image quality improvement by using DSLR lenses with film cameras even if you could solve all of the mechanical and electronic connection problems. With digital cameras every user now fancies himself/herself an expert in optics. A lens like the 55/2.8 AIS Nikkor did not become bad simply because the digital sensor does not behave the same way film does. The 55/1.8 AIS was designed to work with film and works very well with film. If you can't get good results using a 55/2.8 AIS, it's not because of the lens. The MTF obsession is an attempt on the part of people looking for a shortcut when trying to compare lenses. MTF results cover only a very small part of the overall information needed to make meaningful evaluations and they do not account for sample variation either. What is the quality of off-axis parts of a frame? How distracting is the out of focus rendition? How well does the lens perform in flare problem situations? Is infinity focus correct? These are questions the MTF by itself will not answer. I will use a 55/2.8 AIS with TP or ImageLink HQ with a tripod mounted camera and shoot a non moving subject. You can use a DSLR and we will see how much each image can be enlarged. With the exception of some wide angle lenses it will remain more practical to user a film lens on a DSLR than a lens designed for digital cameras on a film camera. I am with Photo Engineer on the issue of using DSLR lenses on film cameras. However you slice it there are issues to contend with and very little potential gain.
There are two common graphic models to show MTF:
-) contrast ratio against modulation frequency
-) contrast ratio against image radius at given modulation frequency
The latter graphic shows the MTF at "off-axis parts of a frame".
I agree though that there are more characterictics not covered by these two graphics. But even those could all be described by a special MTF curve...
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,746
- Format
- 35mm
You do not need to have or use a DSLR of any kind to know whether a lens made for DSLRs works well on a film SLR. My understanding of MTF is that it was originally a tool to allow quick testing of lenses so that not too many lemons left the factory.
Whether a lens is found to be acceptable or not will depend, in part, on how large an image will finally be made. I hope that not too many people are agonizing over lens quality for uncropped 4X6" prints.
Whether a lens is found to be acceptable or not will depend, in part, on how large an image will finally be made. I hope that not too many people are agonizing over lens quality for uncropped 4X6" prints.
I have many Nikon Manual/AF Film SLRs and a DSLR. I've used both modern and older both FF and DX lenses on both sets of cameras. The most modern lens I have is the 50mm 1.8G AF-S and it works great on the F5 and N80. Most DX lenses will vignette on a FF camera (film and digital), but ones like the 35mm 1.8G AF-S DX only vignettes slightly (depending on the aperture and focus distance mainly).
I have yet to have any physical issues with the lenses, but I also don't have any unique lenses that require mirror lock up or anything.
Add: APS camera lenses (IX) should not be used on DX or 35mm sized cameras... that's on every printed material has to do with the IX lenses.
I have yet to have any physical issues with the lenses, but I also don't have any unique lenses that require mirror lock up or anything.
Add: APS camera lenses (IX) should not be used on DX or 35mm sized cameras... that's on every printed material has to do with the IX lenses.
That may be so - I don't know. Nowadays it is used to show prospective buyers what quality they can expect from the model in question. A bit like engine performance charts.
The OP did not mention any print size. I'd rather have more than adequate quality at the largest print size I might attempt, than barely enough at the smallest.
Fortunately, most lenses of five years ago were already made with 24 MP+ sensors in mind. If the lens will mount your camera, then it is likely to be sharp. But as someone else mentioned, one has to be careful of distortion, and to a lesser extent chromatic aberration and vignetting, as all those are curable in digital images, but not on film. I learnt this with my 24-85 G AF-S Nikkor lens, which was sharp as a tack, but had severe distortion and couldn't be used for seascapes, architecture or anything else with straight lines in the frame. I find modern lenses have on average better bokeh and contrast too, with my 70-300 AF-S being much better in those categories than my older 75-300 AF.
My understanding of MTF is it for the designer to look at the first lens out of the prototype shop to see if the design matches the theory.
The MTF and ariel image of an illuminated point at variable distances and offsets should be the same as computer modeled MTF and spot trace diagrams.
If not the same you need to identify why.
If they are the same then need an hour or two in studio with test cards and Fresnels in and out of frame and day ie night out side.
Then you might build the prototype batch and check they all have the same MTF...
The MTF and ariel image of an illuminated point at variable distances and offsets should be the same as computer modeled MTF and spot trace diagrams.
If not the same you need to identify why.
If they are the same then need an hour or two in studio with test cards and Fresnels in and out of frame and day ie night out side.
Then you might build the prototype batch and check they all have the same MTF...
It is just a scientific means to approach many issues related to image quality in the whole reproduction chain.
| 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:  |