 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Analogue Lenses on Digital Body ?
Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, fisheye, macro, etc. - are unsuitable for digital use. Is this a cynical con. to force photographers to junk their expensive lenses and buy new 'digital' versions? If so I feel a sudden need to travel overseas and get some duty free equipment 'cos I aint paying the grossly inflated prices in rip-off Britain!! But I would really just prefer to buy a Pentax digital SLR body replacement and keep all the lenses I already have. Please can anyone advise me on this issue. Sorry for cross-posting. Many thanks - CJB. >Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR >analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >lenses I already have. Please can anyone advise me on this issue. Sorry >for cross-posting. Many thanks - CJB. Well Jessops (or their representitive) is spouting more than their usual quota of misinformation this time. Every Pentax lens made to fit any Pentax body can be fitted to any current Pentax *ist digital body, either directly (any K mount) or with an adapter (M42 or medium format lenses). All will focus correctly, all will meter, all will take pictures. All of your lenses will work with a *istD/DS/DS2/DL and probably any other SLR that Pentax may make.  SignatureJohn Bean > Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR > analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, > fisheye, macro, etc. - are unsuitable for digital use. That's total bullshit. If you life in London and want to try your lenses on my *ist DS, send me private email. Only wide ones might be problematic (but do not have to). However, due to crop factor (sensor size being 16x24mm, not 24x36mm) you will probably want to buy one wide lens that will cover the same angle as your current wide lense does on film. B. || Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the || Pentax SLR analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] || lenses I already have. Please can anyone advise me on this || issue. Sorry for cross-posting. Many thanks - CJB. Have you looked in a mirror lately to see if anything is printed on your forehead? I suspect it is BS designed to sell you a newer and more expensive lens. Signature"Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts" -- Jeff Foxworthy > Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR > analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lenses I already have. Please can anyone advise me on this issue. Sorry > for cross-posting. Many thanks - CJB. As introduction I am a Nikon owner so my answer comes from Pentax's web site. As in Nikon, the usuablity of the lenses depends how old it is. All "K" and newer lenses will fit. KAF, DA/D FA look like you get most if not all of the digital bodies capabliites. However, K mount (ie lenses with no "A" on the aperature ring) are useable in manual and aperature priorty mode only and the auto flash exposure system won't be useable. Now that being said because the digital sensor is smaller than a frame of 35mm film, that 28 degree Wide Angle on digital is going to look like a 42mm lens on a 35mm. I My widest was a 20mm lens and on digital (20x1.5) and it is equivalent to a 30mm on 35mm... not very wide anymore. So, I elected to buy a 18-70 mm lens so I can have my slight wide to short telephoto "normal" lens. I still use all my other Nikon lenses though. SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo > Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR > analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lenses I already have. Please can anyone advise me on this issue. Sorry > for cross-posting. Many thanks - CJB. I use the *ist D and my only DA (digital lens) is the Penatx DA 14mm f:2.8. All my other lenses work very well on the dSLR. My website have samples; http://www.darrelllarose.ca/gallery/Darrell1 All manual focus lenses will stop-down meter, K-A lensws will work in Program and MF mode. K-AF (auto-focus) have all functions. The bodies do have a FOV crop of 1.5X IMHO, you'll enjoy the *ist DS a little more than the DL, but both are good cameras. Darrell Larose Ottawa, Canada > Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR > analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lenses I already have. Please can anyone advise me on this issue. Sorry > for cross-posting. Many thanks - CJB. There can be a problem with some film lenses causing flare and/or ghosting on digital cameras. A digital filter/sensor assembly naturally reflects more light back towards the lens than does darker and more absorptive film emulsion. Lenses designed for digital use have a different coating on the rear element to reduce reflections of this returned light from the sensor, which film-designed lenses don't have. How any particular lens performs is a matter of trial and error, and you may well not notice any difference in the shots, but the fact remains that high-end camera makers are designing digital-specific lenses for their cameras. Additionally, lenses can be designed for high contrast up to a certain resolution, or may sacrifice contrast for greater resolution. Televison lenses are an example of the former, while film lenses generally go for definition. Digital camera lenses are probably more like video lenses, since there is no point in providing definition beyond what the sensor can see. Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. Colin D. > Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a > digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. That's the correct answer. I've found some of my older OM lenses work fine on my E300, some don't and testing them yourself is the only way you'll know for sure. Most of the people claiming "digital lenses" are just marketing hype own only old film lenses and have never used a digital lens to know one way or the other if it's true. If nothing else you'll probably want a wide zoom made for the camera and use you other lenses for tele stuff. SignatureStacey >>Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a >>digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's true. If nothing else you'll probably want a wide zoom made for the > camera and use you other lenses for tele stuff. Since the refraction of light in glass is due to it's wave nature, and the sensors work off of the photo-electric effect caused by light's particle nature, all of your lenses are both analog and digital *AT THE SAME TIME*! ;) > >>Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a > >>digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ;) Maybe, but you're off the point. Lens *design* is different for digital camera optics, nothing to do with your wave/particle remarks. Colin D. >> >>Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a >> >>digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Maybe, but you're off the point. Lens *design* is different for digital >camera optics, nothing to do with your wave/particle remarks. You're suffering from irony deficiency Colin. SignatureJohn Bean >> >>Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a >> >>digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Maybe, but you're off the point. Lens *design* is different for digital >camera optics, nothing to do with your wave/particle remarks. It is not. Provide a site for this. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > >> >>Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a > >> >>digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It is not. Provide a site for this. What isn't? off the point, or design differences, or nothing to do with wave/particle theory? As far as lens design is involved, it is common knowledge that the antireflective coating on the rear element of lenses intended for digital cameras is modified to ameliorate the higher reflectivity of the sensor assembly compared with film. Quotes from Sigma: ". Most effective coating for minimizing flare and ghost with digital SLR cameras." "The Sigma DG lenses work just as well with film cameras, they just have better coating on the rear element to reduce reflection caused by digital cameras' hot filter (and possibly, a slightly redesigned rear element)." Quote from Tamron: " Di - Digitally optimised lens, with reduced chromatic aberrations, and improved rear element coating to reduce back-scatter of light from the digital sensor." Quote from Olympus: " On film SLRs, a coating on the back of the film minimized this part of the flare problem, so few lenses were designed with anti-reflective coatings on the rear elements. Newer digital lenses include more aspherical lens elements to straighten out the light path and more anti-reflective coatings on rear elements." Quote from Canon: "Designed specifically for digital photography, the (17-85 IS) lens has specially shaped lens elements and coatings to suppress ghosting and flare, which can be caused by reflections off digital camera sensors." Colin D. >> Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a >> digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. >That's the correct answer. > I've found some of my older OM lenses work fine on my E300, some don't and >testing them yourself is the only way you'll know for sure. Most of the >people claiming "digital lenses" are just marketing hype own only old film >lenses and have never used a digital lens to know one way or the other if >it's true. If nothing else you'll probably want a wide zoom made for the >camera and use you other lenses for tele stuff. This may be true, but in general the most comment I have seen from folks who have tried both and see little difference. Indeed, if any is seen it usually favors the older lenses. ---- Paul J. Gans >>> Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a >>> digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > from folks who have tried both and see little difference. > Indeed, if any is seen it usually favors the older lenses. But what are they using to compare? The canon kit "digital" lens? SignatureStacey >>>> Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a >>>> digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> from folks who have tried both and see little difference. >> Indeed, if any is seen it usually favors the older lenses. >But what are they using to compare? The canon kit "digital" lens? Yes. The comparisons were subjective and not done under lab conditions. Folks just looked at the pictures they got. ---- Paul J. Gans >> Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR >> analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Recommendation: try your existing lenses, and then rent or borrow a >digital lens, and rate the difference. Then you know. Then why are old Lecia and Zeiss lenses so much better on FF digitals than some modern lenses? Just what are those special digital lenses? Care to name some? ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > >> Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR > >> analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Then why are old Lecia and Zeiss lenses so much better on FF digitals > than some modern lenses? First, the OP wasn't talking about old Leica/Zeiss lenses. He was inquiring why his older Pentax lenses might not be as good as the modern Pentax lenses. Then, since you mentioned it, are Leica/Zeiss lenses 'so much better'? have you any evidence other than anecdotal? In what way are they 'so much better'? Contrast? Flare? or just sharpness? Better built, maybe. Fine craftsmanship, maybe. performance-wise? not so sure about that. > Just what are those special digital lenses? Care to name some? Canon make them. Nikon make them. Minolta make them. Olympus make them. Sigma make them. Tamron make them. Look them up for yourself. Colin D. > Then, since you mentioned it, are Leica/Zeiss lenses 'so much better'? > have you any evidence other than anecdotal? http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/816090 > Canon make them. Nikon make them. Minolta make them. Olympus make > them. Sigma make them. Tamron make them. Look them up for yourself. They not only make lenses, they also sell them. "Designed for digital" not only means coating on rear lens element and controlled telecentricity - it might also mean less resolution, smaller imaging circle and other compromises made by producer in order to sell new lens with profit. B. SignatureCzy wiesz co to jest MIME? Zobacz http://www.grush.one.pl/mime Bronek Kozicki skrev: >> Then, since you mentioned it, are Leica/Zeiss lenses 'so much better'? >> have you any evidence other than anecdotal? > > http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/816090 The difference is astonishing, but it isn´t fair to compare a prime lens with at zoom. And what are the prize-ranges? Even if comparing two lenses of same type and prize, it would only prove the difference between those two lenses, Not the diff. between two brands. SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > The difference is astonishing, but it isn´t fair to compare a prime > lens with at zoom right, but I assume that author did not have best wide prime Canon at hand (24/1.4L). That's a pitty, actually - I'd love to see it compared to Distagon 21/2.8, even if focal length and aperture is different. > And what are the prize-ranges? similar, about $1300 , but Distagon is much more difficult to find. B. >Bronek Kozicki skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Even if comparing two lenses of same type and prize, it would only prove >the difference between those two lenses, Not the diff. between two brands. If you want more on this go here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ John A. Stovall skrev: >>Bronek Kozicki skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 I´m responding to "that" mess. Nothing else. So I´m not says this or that is better than x or y - or worse. Just pointing out hear-say postulates in one message. And I don´t have a Canon dslr ;-) SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler Another "discovery" that I've found valuable with digital ... Many lenses from before 1975 were optimized chromatically for b&w, single-emulsion, or the older 2-layer (iirc) color films. Newer lenses are designed for the 3-layer color neg films. (At least this is my impression.) So my K lens performs better than the A lenses and roughly as well as the newer AF lenses. Is this technically plausible? (I'm not looking for flames; just discussion.) Collin KC8TKA More directed ligh falls on a narrower area \ \ \ \ \ -----\----------------- lenses for color neg film tend to split the light rays so that they fall parallel across the layers. But if they fall on a single layer, then you get chromatic issues -- purple finging, etc., from some lenses. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -----\-\-\------------- \ \ -------\-\------------- \ ---------\------------- > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:02:51 +1300, Colin D > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then why are old Lecia and Zeiss lenses so much better on FF digitals > than some modern lenses? So much better than the canon wide angle lenses.. Also these just happen to have a more retrofocus design than some of the newer wide angles have so are more "telecentric", but then the same film lens people will claim being more telecentric is market hype? SignatureStacey I use the DS and have found that some work better on digital and some not as well. Some Nikon people have passed on to me the same experience. If you have "A" on the lens, then functionally you're fine. If not, there will be a few kinks to work through, but they can be gotten around. Personally, I have Tokina 17/3.5 (non-A), better on digital than on film Pentax K 30/2.8 (non-A), excellent on both film and digital Pentax A35/2, excellent on both film and digital Pentax FA50/1.4, excellent on both film and digital Pentax A100/2.8, better on digital than on film Tamron 300/5.6 (A adapter), adequate on both, but not outstanding Tokina 80-400/4.7-5.6 (AF), very good on both, but not outstanding My recent posting for comments of dried flowers was shot with the FA50/1.4. It's excellent on both film and digital. http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/IMGP1403800.jpg And with digital, 50mm seems to be the new portrait length of choice. Don't worry so much about the salesman. Test your lenses. Then feel free to upgrade specific lenses as needed. There are also other Brits on pdml @ http://www.pdml.net. Join in the discussions. & have a great Christmas. Collin KC8TKA > Test your lenses. Then feel free to upgrade > specific lenses as needed. That's it. My 85mmF2 w SignatureStacey > Jessops (Strand Branch, London) tells me that all of the Pentax SLR > analogue (aka traditional 35mm film) lenses that I have - zoom, > fisheye, macro, etc. - are unsuitable for digital use. Generally, if your current full frame lenses are doing a good job, there's no need to get so called digital lenses. For the wider angles it may be neccessary due to your cropped sensor. The only "real" issue is the cropped nature of most so-called digital lenses. They are smaller and cheaper and have a smaller image circle appropriate to the cropped sensors they serve. Of course if you want backward compatibility with your film bodies or you're hoping in vain that Pentax do a full-frame version, then full frame lenses are a must. There is talk regarding anti-reflective coatings at the back end. I presume this is to avoid reflections from the sensor itself bouncing off of the rear element. It may be a real issue, but I suspect the symptom is exceedingly difficult to detect in the first place. If anyone has a link to something showing the effect, I would appreciate it. As to the word "Analogue", film is not an analogue (analogy), it captures an image. It is real. Just because one new thing is "digital" it does not make its old predecessor analogue. In fact a digital camera sensor outputs a voltage that is proportional to the number of photons captured under a color filter. This means that a digital camera sensor is in fact analogue. The only digital aspect is the storage of the image. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.