Digital lenses vs Film lenses

vaio2006

I recently read an article on a Japanese photo magazine which said
you should take photos on a digital SLR camera with digital lenses.

Do "film" lenses produce worse images (when shooting on a Digital SLR?)

I currently use a D70s/D300 and own a
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D (without VR)
and the lense that comes with the camera.... they don't seem that bad, but should I invest in the lenses FOR digital?

nightowlcat

I don't think it makes a difference, sounds like a sales pitch to me. I don't have that many DX lenses myself, a grand total of two, the 18-70DX and the kit 18-55DX.

System

I agree with nightowlcat in that I don't really believe that is makes a difference at all. But with that said I am no expert on lenses either so let's wait and let Andy pipe up and tell us his thoughts. Andy your on deck!!!

Ric Grupe

When you use a film lens that was made for a full frame camera on a dslr that is less than full frame you are using the "sweet" (center) portion of the lens and can actually achieve better results. That would seem to be a contradiction to your article.

The main advantage to me in digital lens like Canon's efs line is a smaller physical size for a given focal length.

ulrikft

The sensor of a digital camera and the film of an analog camera responds differently to reflection if I'm not totally mistaken, that will create a need for different coating. But i don't think it is a very major or even noticeable problem for most situations.

(correct me if I'm wrong experts )

mwgrice

ulrikft wrote:

The sensor of a digital camera and the film of an analog camera responds differently to reflection if I'm not totally mistaken, that will create a need for different coating. But i don't think it is a very major or even noticeable problem for most situations.

(correct me if I'm wrong experts )

That's my understanding. I've also read that a lot of the lenses designed for Canon at the tail end of the film era already had a coating suitable for digital. I'm sure that's true for Nikon, too, and many or most other manufacturers. It's still probably worth a little research before you buy a lens, but then again it usually is.

Shane422

I always heard that digital lenses have a coating on the back to reduce reflections from the sensor and flare from those reflections. (i.e. light hits the sensor, bouces back at the glass, then back to the sensor again, and so on). I'm guessing that a digital sensor is more reflective than film.

That said, my most used lenses are not digital lenses.

DI-Joe

In Canon land a film lens say... the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM has a plastic mount where-as the "digital lens" has a metal mount. I couldn't tell you if they are optically different, the price difference is significant though and that should tell you that there probably are more coatings and the like on the lens.

ziggy53

DI-Joe wrote:

... the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM has a plastic mount ...

That's news to me. Are you sure about an "L" lens with a plastic mount?

Glory2Jesus4Photography

vaio2006 wrote:

I recently read an article on a Japanese photo magazine which said
you should take photos on a digital SLR camera with digital lenses.

Do "film" lenses produce worse images (when shooting on a Digital SLR?)

I currently use a D70s/D300 and own a
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D (without VR)
and the lense that comes with the camera.... they don't seem that bad, but should I invest in the lenses FOR digital?

Olympus is sure enough about it that when they stepped into the Digital market that they designed every lens from that point on just for there sensor. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. They have some of the sharpest edge to edge lenses made with very little to no vignetting.
Other manufactures do not think that it makes enough difference to poor a lot of money in to the R&D and manufacturing of digital lenses to have a full digital line up Such as Canon. Then again Canon has been complacent with a lot of things here in the past few years.

Slinky0390

I don't own any "digital" lenses, and I have also not had any problems with them. I think you'll find the majority of photographers use the EF or non digital lenses.

DI-Joe

ziggy53 wrote:

That's news to me. Are you sure about an "L" lens with a plastic mount?

No, to be honest, I'm not sure.

I've also heard that "digital" lenses are used to refer to APS-C sensor sized so like Canon's EF-S line.

nightowlcat

Well, with the Nikon lenses, the mount's the same all the way back, and I get marvelous results (other than operator error) from manual focus lenses up through the 18-70DX lens.

For the OP:
There are a few lenses that aren't compatible, you'll find them here: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/compatibility.html

The museum shots I posted here a while ago were done with the 20mm AF-D on a D1h. These two are of my granddaughter, taken yesterday with non DX lenses

135 f3.5 manual focus on D1h, no flash (yes she has a runny nose, ick)



85mm 1.8, flash used

mr peas

I think crop-body sensors will not be going away anytime soon and with this, digital lenses. These sensors are getting better and smaller so are the lenses. Take a look at Olympus' line of digital lenses and cameras, their crop factor is 2x, that means a 14mm lens in an Oly is a 28mm lens in film, but the quality of images coming from these cameras are great, plus noise quality in higher ISOs in these cameras are close to or are already on par with Canon. So I think digital or not, this all depends on your camera body and budget.

Want the sharpest images? Get a tripod! In most cases the reason why people have blurry images is due to the camera's operator not being able to hold steady or use their camera correctly. Sweet spots and all, face it, if you spend good money on a lens and you're not getting good results, the probable cause is you not the lens.

Digital or film, just be happy with what you have. If you're still stuck on that film vs crop sensor trip, you're spending too much time debating when you should be spending more time shooting.

vaio2006

mr peas wrote:

Digital or film, just be happy with what you have. If you're still stuck on that film vs crop sensor trip, you're spending too much time debating when you should be spending more time shooting.

Haha yeh, I was just looking into buy a few new lenses, but since "film" lense are cheaper.. I wanted to go with those... But after I read that article.. i was wondering if something was wrong with my eyes. (because to my eyes, my images seem pretty crisp)

ulrikft

mr peas wrote:

I think crop-body sensors will not be going away anytime soon and with this, digital lenses. These sensors are getting better and smaller so are the lenses. Take a look at Olympus' line of digital lenses and cameras, their crop factor is 2x, that means a 14mm lens in an Oly is a 28mm lens in film, but the quality of images coming from these cameras are great, plus noise quality in higher ISOs in these cameras are close to or are already on par with Canon. So I think digital or not, this all depends on your camera body and budget.

Want the sharpest images? Get a tripod! In most cases the reason why people have blurry images is due to the camera's operator not being able to hold steady or use their camera correctly. Sweet spots and all, face it, if you spend good money on a lens and you're not getting good results, the probable cause is you not the lens.

Digital or film, just be happy with what you have. If you're still stuck on that film vs crop sensor trip, you're spending too much time debating when you should be spending more time shooting.

The smaller olympus sensor is not on par with canon (or nikon's new cameras) yet I'm afraid. A smaller sensor will always have problems with noise, that is the curse of the technology I guess.

Olympus E3 iso 3200 http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/Samples/ISO/e3_iso3200_crop.jpg

Canon 40d iso 3200 http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/Samples/ISO/40d_iso3200_crop.jpg

Nikon d300 iso 3200 http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/Samples/ISO/d300_iso3200_crop.jpg

(Moderator edit: those images are copyright "DPReview" and should not be used without permission. I converted to links instead. ziggy53)

mr peas

Close enough . Thats why I said, close to or already on par. Oly still beats the two by having built-in IS, that gives it an edge to not using 3200.

Either way, they'll be improving the same way Nikon caught up in the noise race.

But back to the 'digital' lens topic, they're not going away and they will compete if not take over the 'film' lenses as these sensors improve.

claudermilk

The lens does not know or care what imaging media is behind it. IMHO that magazine article is a bunch of nonsense. Depending on the manufacturer "for digital" means changed coatings and/or a reduced-size image circle. Really only the latter makes any difference--and you only have to care if you are using a larger than APS-C sensor body from Nikon or Canon.

For the updated coatings, I've seen many comments primarily on Sigma lenses which have both versions in the field where it made no difference (e.g., 50-500 DG vs non-DG, all who have commented on using both have said it made no difference). I have both "film" and "digital" lenses and both seem to project images on my digital sensor just fine.

This is like the tripods marked as "for digital"--it's just for those who don't know any better and is a way to push sales. It's just a camera, at the base nothing's changed, a light-tight box that has an opening to allow light to fall on an imaging media in a controlled manner. The light doesn't know or care what that media is.

ulrikft

claudermilk wrote:

The lens does not know or care what imaging media is behind it. IMHO that magazine article is a bunch of nonsense. Depending on the manufacturer "for digital" means changed coatings and/or a reduced-size image circle. Really only the latter makes any difference--and you only have to care if you are using a larger than APS-C sensor body from Nikon or Canon.

For the updated coatings, I've seen many comments primarily on Sigma lenses which have both versions in the field where it made no difference (e.g., 50-500 DG vs non-DG, all who have commented on using both have said it made no difference). I have both "film" and "digital" lenses and both seem to project images on my digital sensor just fine.

This is like the tripods marked as "for digital"--it's just for those who don't know any better and is a way to push sales. It's just a camera, at the base nothing's changed, a light-tight box that has an opening to allow light to fall on an imaging media in a controlled manner. The light doesn't know or care what that media is.

Well... the light reflecting properties of a digital sensor IS quite different from that of a film. Believe it or not..

quoting:

Digital camera sensors are highly reflective objects - much more so than film. Some lens systems, under some conditions, can actually pick up the glow of the image falling on a sensor and reflect that glow right back onto the sensor. The size and intensity of the reflection will depend on the size and curvature of the lens elements (especially the rear elements), the lens surface coatings, the proximity of the rear element to the sensor, the lens aperture in use, the focusing distance, and the distribution of light and dark areas in the scene. If and when a reflection happens it typically takes the form of a small bluish-white soft circle appearing in the center of the shot. This is generally regarded as a bad thing, so there is some importance in understanding the phenomenon in order to avoid it when possible.

( http://thesybersite.com/minolta/sensor-reflection/

Another difference between film and digital is the degree to which the medium itself reflects light. The emulsion side of film stock tends to be somewhat dull and non-reflective, but the surface of the typical digital sensor (or rather the filter that sits directly above it) is highly so. As such, any internal reflections in the lens can create ghosting and other artifacts if not sufficiently controlled. To help do so, lenses designed for digital tend to have improved coatings on their elements. Owing to the increased popularity of digital though, such coatings are becoming common on all new lens designs.

( http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/digital-lenses.html )

Miguel Delinquento

Some reality to "digital" lenses

Shane422 wrote:

I always heard that digital lenses have a coating on the back to reduce reflections from the sensor and flare from those reflections. (i.e. light hits the sensor, bouces back at the glass, then back to the sensor again, and so on). I'm guessing that a digital sensor is more reflective than film.

That said, my most used lenses are not digital lenses.

I've owned about 25 non-digital lenses over the past 3 years and was skeptical about so-called digital lenses. Then on a series of closeups using an older Tamron 90mm SP, I noticed a lot of 'backsplash" reflections in the image that are clearly of the sensor. Otherwise this is a fine lens.
If this artifact is what "digital" coatings aim to prevent then I'm a believer. Since then I've turned over most of my older lenses and replaced them with new APS-C-sized ones and have not had any problems.

M

claudermilk

ulrikft wrote:

Well... the light reflecting properties of a digital sensor IS quite different from that of a film. Believe it or not..

No argument there, I was ignoring that aspect. The thing is, the Sigma DG apparently consists mainly of different coatings on the rear element to deal with that. However, all Sigma owners who have owned both DG and non-DG version of lenses (mainly the Bigma) that I have seen comments from say it makes no noticeable difference.

I also don't have any trouble with my Canon glass intended for film. That being the 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L (possibly coated to deal with digital...), and a 50/1.8 Mk I (definitely not meant for digital). So I have doubts as to the actual real world effects of the difference--which gets me back to thinking it's mainly marketing fodder.

Looking at the linked sites, I've never seen those kinds of artifacts in my digital shooting. I have to lean towards the Earthbound Light article's comments: "made for digital" often equates to "new and improved."

In the end my 0.02 says don't pick a lens primarily upon whether it claims to be for digital or not, pick it on the more important characteristics we always have.

keepright

Glory2Jesus4Photography wrote:

Olympus is sure enough about it that when they stepped into the Digital market that they designed every lens from that point on just for there sensor.

Olympus also had no AF lenses worth mentioning and had abandoned their film SLRs long before they got into digital. If you're starting from nothing, which means a massive competitive disadvantage, why not try to re-write the rules to make it look like you have something new to offer? It doesn't automatically make it true, and even if it is true, it doesn't mean that the others are playing the same game now.

I absolutely believe that most of the "designed for digital" lenses are just selling buzzword compliance, especially at the low end of the price range. (An 18-55 f/5.6 lens would sound like laughable carp without it.) And I certainly believe that Olympus's 7-14 works an optical miracle with its Designed for Digital performance -- and the Nikon 14-24 is a disappointment even thought it is "optimized for FX- and DX-format sensors featuring Nikon’s excusive ED Glass and Nano Crystal Coat".

For some film lenses, I can see a re-design to improve telecentricity to accommodate digital sensors. (Rumour has it that this is one of the changes with the Canon 16-35 from v1 to v2. I suppose Canon has too many models to make Leica's curved sensor practical.) Digital does have some new demands and engineering requirements that haven't existed before, in the same way that 35mm required new and better lens designs than the large and medium format cameras that existed before it. It will all be sorted out soon, just give it a decade or two.

Photoskipper

DI-Joe wrote:

In Canon land a film lens say... the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM has a plastic mount where-as the "digital lens" has a metal mount. I couldn't tell you if they are optically different, the price difference is significant though and that should tell you that there probably are more coatings and the like on the lens.

it is new to me either. I have the lens and camera line up similar to DI Joe. Just opened the dry box and examined all the lens and found that most of them are metal mounted including all the Ls. Particularly the old film lens such as the 70 -300 F4-5.6. The only plastic mount was the kit lens 18 -55 and the old film lens 28-80 f3.5-5.6.

Many lens manufacturer emphasis that the digital lens has extra coating to prevent the reflection from sensor.

Most of the time digital lens are refer to those design for the smaller sensor camers such as the Canon-S, Nikon - Dx, DI.

It makes sense that use the "digital lens" for digital camera with smaller sensor. No point to carry extra glass for no reason.

claudermilk

Playing devil's advocate here, using a film lens on a crop sensor does have it's advantages. You are now using just the center of the image circle, so you are basically using the best-performing part of the lens and avoiding the edges which may be softer & distorted. Makes that extra glass worth it in some cases.

Oh, and the 70-200 w/ plastic mount would be new to us because no such thing exists. Complete fabrication. There is no "digital version" of the 70-200 lenses.

dbd

Two of the characteristics that seperate digital sensors from film are falloff of sensitivity to light from angles off perpendicular to the sensor and alignment of the color filters with the sensors. A common response to these in 'digital lens' design is to make the lens design more nearly telecentric. This can make the lens elements larger and require more elements. This may be why there are few 'digital design' pancake wide angle filters.

Of course, the marketeers has lumped in many other things into their usage of 'digital lens'.

A couple of references that discuss the issues, real and marketing:

http://www.swissarmyfork.com/digital_lens_faq.htm
particularly section 1.1

http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/digital_lenses.htm


Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com