Digital Lenses

Deke in Ak

Just how important or why should I use, or does it matter, lenses specifically for a digital vs film camera?

I was thinking of getting a Nikon D70 or D80 because I have an assortment of 2.8 D lenses already. Alas, a photographer friend said although they will work, that a lens specifically for a digital camera will yield better results.

If I have to replace lenses anyway I plan to switch to Canon, Costco.com has the 5d with a 28-135 IS lens for $2599 after rebates. Sounds like a deal.

Any comments?

Thanks, Dennis

Seymore

Ummmmmm, Dennis... I think that your "photographer friend" is fulla,... well, you know. The DX (digital) line of lenses are good, but this is if you want to keep up with the Jones's, and have the money to do so. I can tell you that I'm still using some of my MF primes with digital, and luvin' the quality. I also have a number of "D" lenses that are great. So, keep your "D" lenses. They'll work fine on your new body.

You may also want to inquire HERE. :ivar

OH, and I can tell you that if you choose to take the Canon route, I doubt if you'll have much trouble selling those "D" lenses. There is still quite the demand...

claudermilk

Ah, you just have to love ignorance coupled to a big mouth. Marketers are sticking "digital" to anything and everything to convince uneducated consumers to think it will work better than any other equipment (a "Digital" tripod for example? ).

I know that Sigma claims that their "DG" lenses have different coatings on the rear element to reduce reflections. Howver, there are plenty of people using both DG and non-DG lense who say that it makes no difference.

In the end, the only lenses where it makes a difference are ones engineered for APS-C sensors with either just a smaller image circle (e.g., Tokina's 12-24/4) or both the samller image circle and longer rear element (e.g., Canon's EF-S lenses).

I can tell you my 50/1.8 Mk I (replaced with the Mk II in 1990-so it's at minimum going on 17 years old, heck next year it can vote & a couple more for it to drink--if it can't already. :booze). It sure works great on my 20D. So does my 24-70--designed for film bodies.

Deke in Ak

Thanks for the replies. I really didn't see how the image circle would make a difference film vs digital, but I had to ask the question.

Thanks again, Dennis

HeldDown

The size of the image circle will make a HUGE difference to your images.
Lenses optimized for digital sensors often DO display noticeable differences in certain situations.
Remember, there are shades of grey.

Deke in Ak

HeldDown wrote:

The size of the image circle will make a HUGE difference to your images.
Lenses optimized for digital sensors often DO display noticeable differences in certain situations.
Remember, there are shades of grey.

Could you elaborate some?

If the coverage is larger than the sensor and the glass and coatings are supposedly the same, I don't see a downside. Am I missing something.

Thanks, Dennis

HeldDown

To elaborate briefly:
In many cases, a "digital only" lens' image circle will NOT properly cover a 35mm neg's real estate (or, by the same virtue, a full-frame sensor's.)
Some companies have developed coatings that help discourage abherrant refraction and therefore help increase contrast. While these differences are often very small, and many "pre-digital" lenses work just fine on a digital body, it is NOT fair to say that your friend is full of it, that "Digital only" is a scam, or assume that ANYBODY on the internet knows everything.

TylerW

I recently purchased a lens from Broadway Photo (mistake #1) and when finalizing the sale, the sales clerk told me that I would need to purchase a digital pixelation filter if I was going to make it work on my 10d.

I told him I had plenty of them lying around.

pathfinder

TylerW wrote:

I recently purchased a lens from Broadway Photo (mistake #1) and when finalizing the sale, the sales clerk told me that I would need to purchase a digital pixelation filter if I was going to make it work on my 10d.

I told him I had plenty of them lying around.

Now that IS Funny!!

pathfinder

Some lenses designated for Digital SLRs or Digital SLRs with reduced size sensors like an APS sensor in the 20D, have a circle of image light that is too small to cover a fulll frame sensor, like 5D. Hence they will vingette badly, or may not even mount at all. The mirror in some full frame cameras (Canon 5D), MAY hit the back of a lens designated for APS cameras only like the EF-S lenses

Most 35mm full frame designed lenses will not provide an image circle large enough to cover a 2 1/4 square film camera or an 8x10 view camera. Most lenses are not made to cover more image area than needed for a given film/sensor format.

The reverse of that is that lenses designed for a full frame camera, used on an APS sensored camera, will usually perform superbly, because the rays of light that are the lesser focused at the periphery of the full frame 35mm image circle are discarded with an APS sensor because it is so much smaller than a 35mm frame. The corners of the image in an APS sensored camera will usually be sharper than the corners of the full frame camera since the APS camera is ONLY using the sweet spot in the center fo the image circle of the full frame designed lens. But full frame designed lenses will be significantly larger, heavier and more expensive.

Some of the EF-S lenses are excellent lenses, and IF you KNOW you will never want a full frame camera, are an excellent investment.

It is true that silicon sensors are more reflective than the surface of film was, so there has been an attempt to alter the coatings on lenses, especially rear elements, to reduce reflections inside the camera body. How significant this is, depends on what the lens is used for and the specific camera body. It can make a significant difference on a camera altered to shoot IR.

Shane422

I found that one advantage of using a nondigital lens on my Nikon D50 is that my nodigital lens is a 62MM lens, so I could buy a "Stepdown" ring and use my 52MM filters on it without getting any vignetting. I've never had a problem with the older nondigital lenses.

Bob&Glennie

I Agree!!!

HeldDown wrote:

To elaborate briefly:
In many cases, a "digital only" lens' image circle will NOT properly cover a 35mm neg's real estate (or, by the same virtue, a full-frame sensor's.)
Some companies have developed coatings that help discourage abherrant refraction and therefore help increase contrast. While these differences are often very small, and many "pre-digital" lenses work just fine on a digital body, it is NOT fair to say that your friend is full of it, that "Digital only" is a scam, or assume that ANYBODY on the internet knows everything.

I agree!!!
I aquired an adapter so that I could use my old Pentax-M42 400mm F4 Prime on my DSLR body, and although it works in manual mode just fine, the quality of image is not as saturated and contrasty as even my cheap Sigma 110-400mm DC (digital dedicated) lens. It is CERTAINLY not as good as my OEM Digital optomized lenses. I use the old Pentax because it's very sharp and pretty fast but I must do some saturation and constrast work on the computer when I user it.

Bob

wolfwoods

Same for Nikons
Virtually any Nikon mount lens designed for use on a film camera will work on your digital Nikon body because the lenses are designed to cover the area of a 35mm frame. However, the lenses designed for a digital Nikon will not work on a film camera because they are designed for the smaller area of the DX sensor.

I haven't seen where the difference in coatings makes a visible difference in the photos, but perhaps my eyes aren't as perceptive as others.

You didn't say you were considering the new D40, but if you do be aware that it does not have a focus motor in the body. Any lens you use with it will need to have a built-in focus motor or you will have to focus manually.