 |
 | 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 / Film Photography / Medium format / July 2006Since going digital my lenses have deteriorated!
This was said to me today by another phorographer. Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the images have. How many other people have felt something like this? > This was said to me today by another phorographer. Yeah sure. Since going Digital, my dog died, and my wife left me. I'll miss the dog. "grandguru" <grandguru@uboot.com> wrote in message > [Since going digital my lenses have deteriorated] > This was said to me today by another phorographer. > Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the > images have. Lenses can always be restored to their previous performance by going back to film ... The same 'deterioration would happen if a medium format lens was used to take Minox size negatives. The greater the magnification needed to make the print the greater the magnification of the lens aberations. > This was said to me today by another phorographer. > Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the > images have. How many other people have felt something like this? Do you mean that there's something to the marketing ploy about film lenses not being good for digital?! Or did you just forget to store them at 55F or lower? | > This was said to me today by another phorographer. | > Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the | > images have. How many other people have felt something like this? | | Do you mean that there's something to the marketing ploy about film | lenses not being good for digital?! It's known that the digital sensors are much more reflective than the surface of film and some of that light is reflected back by the rear element(s) of the lens to slightly degrade the digital image. Recent "digital" lenses have extra anti-reflection coating to suppress this. Norm >> This was said to me today by another phorographer. >> Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the >> images have. How many other people have felt something like this? > > Do you mean that there's something to the marketing ploy about film > lenses not being good for digital?! Yet another person who chooses to ignore facts to believe there is no reason for them to spend money. Anyone who has actually compared high quality "Designed for digital" lenses vs old film glass wouldn't agree with you that this is some sort of marketing ploy. Then again as they say; ignorance is bliss.  SignatureStacey > This was said to me today by another phorographer. > Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the > images have. How many other people have felt something like this? I was reading that film lenses don't work so well with digital sensors because it is better if light reaches a digital sensor perpendicularly which is not the case for these lenses that were designed for film. >> This was said to me today by another phorographer. >> Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because it is better if light reaches a digital sensor perpendicularly > which is not the case for these lenses that were designed for film. This _may_ be true for some non-retrofocus rangefinder lenses, but other than that, it's FUD. (For the obvious reason that retrofocus lenses have a rear element so small and so far away from the sensor that the angles of incidence are nearly perpendicular.) For example, if you find a good copy of the Stigma 12-24 zoom, it'll provide superb images on a 5D or 1Dsmk2. David J. Littleboy davidjl@gol.com Tokyo, Japan > >> This was said to me today by another phorographer. > >> Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > incidence are nearly perpendicular.) For example, if you find a good copy of > the Stigma 12-24 zoom, it'll provide superb images on a 5D or 1Dsmk2. In the latter case, aren't we getting very close to MF being redundant? >> > I was reading that film lenses don't work so well with digital sensors >> > because it is better if light reaches a digital sensor perpendicularly [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > In the latter case, aren't we getting very close to MF being redundant? That discussion is taboo here. Or ought to be. No one has ever had any problems with 35mm SLR lenses on APS-C sensors, so the only question remaining is full frame digital. Where all the (wide angle) examples I've seen, simply have the digital looking worlds better than the same lens on film. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> > I was reading that film lenses don't work so well with digital sensors > >> > because it is better if light reaches a digital sensor perpendicularly [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Better in what sense? Less grainy-looking, perhaps? It's the graininess that bugs me about film. I like the more regular smoothness that digital can give. >>> This was said to me today by another phorographer. >>> Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rear element so small and so far away from the sensor that the angles of > incidence are nearly perpendicular.) Not true. Or does "nearly" mean anything from 18 degrees to zero in your opinion? > For example, if you find a good copy > of the Stigma 12-24 zoom, it'll provide superb images on a 5D or 1Dsmk2. Do you KNOW what the exit pupil distance is for -that- lens? Lenses that are reported to work well like the zeiss WA's all have exit pupils much further away from the sensor than say many of the canon WA's that don't work so well. You may believe it's FUD because you own these other lenses and don't want to believe it makes any difference? I'm not convinced there is nothing to this like you and a few others continually claim. SignatureStacey > >>> This was said to me today by another phorographer. > >>> Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > want to believe it makes any difference? I'm not convinced there is nothing > to this like you and a few others continually claim. If the effective sensors are at the back of the chip then I can see a problem with the light arriving at an angle. The light will be refracted when travelling through the chip causing colors to split and the bending of the light will mean the light falls on the sensors in a slightly different position than it would if it were film. Also, I would doubt that the front surface of the chip is flat to within a quarter of the wavelength of light (or whatever fraction of the wavelength is deemed optically flat). So just from that point of view, if the rear exit pupil were small and far away from the sensor chip then it would be better. And then there's the problem of reflections off the surface of the chip. I wonder if they multi-coat chip surfaces? I am guessing not as the process would destroy the chip so the multicoating on the lens rear element rear surface would have to be good. It's just common sense. >> >>> This was said to me today by another phorographer. >> >>> Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Not true. Or does "nearly" mean anything from 18 degrees to zero in your >> opinion? If you mean between perpendicular and 18 degrees from perpendicular, then that sounds like within tolerances of the microlenses to me. On the 5D the rear element of the various lenses here seems about flush with the lens mount, which gives a 44 mm rear-element to sensor distance, and the extreme outside of the frame is 20mm off axis. That's not a particularly extreme angle of incidence. And then there's the point that at f/11 the images are sharp and show almost no vignetting. So a theory that claims that it doesn't work is rather on the problematic side... My bet would be that the Olympus 4/3 cameras see pretty much exactly the same angles of incidence at the corners as the 5D does for 25mm and shorter lenses. (The "telecentric" bit is clearly a lie; look up telecentric and you'll find discussions of lenses with some very strange properties.) >> > For example, if you find a good copy >> > of the Stigma 12-24 zoom, it'll provide superb images on a 5D or >> > 1Dsmk2. >> >> Do you KNOW what the exit pupil distance is for -that- lens? It has to be something on the order of 44 mm, since there's a violently swinging mirror it has to remain clear of, Doh! I've seen the examples, and they are lovely. Far better than anything that's every been produced on 35mm film at that angle of view. >> Lenses that are >> reported to work well like the zeiss WA's all have exit pupils much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> nothing >> to this like you and a few others continually claim. The absolute awfull 17-40 produces lovely sharp images, corner to corner at f/11. One cheap (under US$700) lens covering five useful focal lengths and producing great images when used with a tad of care is pretty flipping amazing in my book. (I've seen the Zeiss vs. 17-40 comparisons, and can't replicate the bad results those guys get with the 17-40.) And it ain't just me; lots of people are doing good landscape work with Canon FF and the 17-40. Again, this lens on the 5D produces better images than have ever been produced on 35mm film. > If the effective sensors are at the back of the chip then I can see a > problem with the light arriving at an angle. The light will be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > multicoating on the lens rear element rear surface would have to be > good. It's just common sense. You can do all the armchair theorizing you want, but the bottom line is that FF digital with extreme wide angle lenses simply works if you use a bit of care and the common sense to stop down to the point the corners sharpen up. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >The absolute awfull 17-40 produces lovely sharp images, corner to corner at >f/11. One cheap (under US$700) lens covering five useful focal lengths and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And it ain't just me; lots of people are doing good landscape work with >Canon FF and the 17-40. Are you talking about the 17-40/f4 or the 17-40/2.8? The former (the one I have) can be had for under $700, the latter is $1400. The cheaper one is newer and appears to have been optimized for center-frame performance. IOW, at such time as I upgrade to FF, I may wish I'd sprung for the other. In any case, it works like a charm on the 10D. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Are you talking about the 17-40/f4 or the 17-40/2.8? Oops, correction: there's a 17-40/4 for $629, and a 16-35/2.8 for $1400. PS: I'm hearing rumors that the Nikon MF scanners are no longer in production. That would be very sad, if true. For now, BH still has them in stock. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>The absolute awful 17-40 produces lovely sharp images, corner to corner >>at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The former (the one I have) can be had for under $700, > the latter is $1400. Yep. That's the beast. There's no Canon 17-40/2.8; there's a 16-35/2.8 which is worse at the wide end and better at the long and than the 17-40/4.0. From this review, you can see that if you are shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 you'd be much happier with the 35/1.4, but otherwise it's as good as it gets. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/index.htm > The cheaper one is newer and appears to have been > optimized for center-frame performance. The 17-40/4.0 is a great lens on FF, assuming you stop down to f/11, which you need to do for DOF in most cases where you want sharp corners. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >>The absolute awful 17-40 produces lovely sharp images, corner to corner > >>at [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The 17-40/4.0 is a great lens on FF, assuming you stop down to f/11, which > you need to do for DOF in most cases where you want sharp corners. A 17mm lens that has to be stopped down to f11 before the corners are sharp? Sheesh. You should ask for your money back. Peter >> The 17-40/4.0 is a great lens on FF, assuming you stop down to f/11, >> which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sharp? > Sheesh. You should ask for your money back. Reality checks. (1) The Nikon wide zooms have the same property... (2) And nobody else makes a 17mm lens. (Except the Sigmas, but they need to be stopped down, too.) (3) And the 17-40 on the 5D is sharper at every f stop at every part of the frame than the comparable wide zooms on APS-C cameras. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> The 17-40/4.0 is a great lens on FF, assuming you stop down > >> to f/11, which you need to do for DOF in most cases where you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > (3) And the 17-40 on the 5D is sharper at every f stop at every part > of the frame than the comparable wide zooms on APS-C cameras. > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan I have both the 15mm and the 18mm Pentax. Both has plenty sharp corners at about f5.6 1/2. That makes a 17mm that needs f11 sound pretty bad to me, but whether that's because the Canon is unusually bad (given the rest of their wides, likely) or because the Pentaxes are unusually good I can't comment upon. A bit of both, probably. And it's surely not "most" scenes that need f11 for DoF purposes from a lens that wide, unless you are terminally addicted to really close "foreground interest" in landscapes, I suppose. Peter Some high end digital cameras or digital backs add the infra-red filter. The electroin image devise can capture wider specturm than the films, but the lenses are usually not chromatically corrected. This can contributes to the focusing softness. I read that Carl Zeiss's Superachromatric lenses have taken the steps to fix this problem. For example, they no longer have (don't need) the IR focsuing adjust scale. Try adding an IR-blocking filter. > This was said to me today by another phorographer. > Of course the lenses haven't changed but the way that we look at the > images have. How many other people have felt something like this? |
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
|
©2008 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.