/p/ - Photography » Thread #2612297

[16 / 3 / ?]

431KiB, 752x1000, g7wys..jpg

Film vs Digital: Lenses, Does It Matter?

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 10:56:35 No.2612297 View View Reply Original Report

Hey guys is there any real cost of going with old-school film lenses with a modern digital interchangeable lens camera system? I know modern lenses might have complex coatings and special elements that will result overall sharper and more accurate shots, but the low prices for film lenses, especially with older EF lenses are very tempting.

So, film lenses with digital bodies, yay or nay?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 11:12:16 No.2612306 Report

Quoted By: >>2612321 >>2612341

I don't know if it's all marketing but some companies have mentioned that since digital sensors have glass in front of them (that is a known fact) lenses have to compensate for it. Unlike film which has nothing between the lens and the film other than maybe a layer in the film. I think that is only relevant when dealing with really advanced optics to get the most resolution because lenses are really over designed. In general use and for practical purposes people use whatever and get great results.

vosh !35mmF/4Qi6

vosh !35mmF/4Qi6 Wed 24 Jun 2015 11:13:05 No.2612308 Report

Quoted By:

yay. To me modern lenses mostly produce an overall generic look (some more, some less), but lack character. Always with some exceptions of course..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 11:47:42 No.2612321 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612306
Sensors don't just have glass in front of them, but also microlenses. Every sensor pixel has it's own lens and this is what causes most of the fringing when you use film lenses on digital.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 12:02:01 No.2612328 Report

Quoted By:

There is no real applicable difference in quality if you are shooting hand held and not on an optical bench/critical flat field work

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 13:02:06 No.2612336 Report

Quoted By: >>2612930 >>2612958 >>2615347

>>2612297
yes for a few reasons

1) film lenses rarely had a coating on the rear element. film is not reflective enough for this to matter but sensors can act like mirrors and bounce light back at the lens which can result in ghosting.

Edge sharpness and fall off, mostly with wide lenses, light hits the edge of the sensor on an angle and can result in chromatic aberration and fall off. Sure fall off happens on film too but it is more exaggerated on digital.
Film is also quite thick in comparison to digital sensors (think 3-4 layers of silver suspended in gelatin instead of a flat photo site). So film lenses didn't always have to focus on such an extremely flat plain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 13:19:51 No.2612341 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612306
It is true.
It's called a sensor stack, btw.

And for that reason Leica has a very thin sensor stack.
That way their older lenses still work very well on digital Leica's.

Canon and Nikon use thicker sensor stacks.
So there will be some image degradation, but not too much to worry about I think.

Four-Thirds, being specifically designed for digital, uses a very thick sensor stack.
It is reported that adapting Leica lenses to 4/3 results in poor results becasue of this.

The metabones speedbooster does compensate for the differences in sensor stacks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 03:48:37 No.2612900 Report

Quoted By: >>2612908

This thread my be the best place to ask.

Does anybody know the results of using lenses designed for digital on film?

It definitely wont be negative, I would guess, but will the corrections for digital sensors just not be significant on film? or will it just be better because lenses are just being made even sharper?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 03:56:36 No.2612908 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612900
It works totally fine. The corrections for digital have no benefit on film but don't hurt. It's money you're spending and getting nothing from, but the lenses are Computer Aided Design which makes them very good by nature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 03:58:30 No.2612909 Report

Quoted By: >>2612930

The differences are effectively indistinguishable unless you pixel peep. The largest difference will be due to differences and advancements in lens coatings and lens designs (ED, SLD, FL, ASPH elements).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1433899448822.jpg, 472KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 04:04:57 No.2612918 Report

Quoted By: >>2612921

I've taken some decent pictures with film lenses on digital.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1433902374548.jpg, 419KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 04:11:49 No.2612921 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612918
One more.
First one taken with vintage 1985 era Minolta 35-70/4, second with same era 28-135/4-4.5

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 04:31:17 No.2612930 Report

Quoted By: >>2612958

>>2612336
>film lenses rarely had a coating on the rear element. film is not reflective enough for this to matter but sensors can act like mirrors and bounce light back at the lens which can result in ghosting.
this is true, but it's very rarely a problem in my experience. A handful of lenses have a reputation for having problems on digital, but the vast majority are fine.

>>2612909
>The differences are effectively indistinguishable unless you pixel peep. The largest difference will be due to differences and advancements in lens coatings and lens designs (ED, SLD, FL, ASPH elements).
said it best

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 05:06:54 No.2612958 Report

Quoted By: >>2615360

>>2612336
>>2612930

Holy shit I was going to call you both idiots for saying that film lenses didn't have coating in the rear element. Then I looked at my film lenses and they indeed didn't have coatings in the rear element so I turned out to be the idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 09:55:43 No.2615347 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612336
> film lenses rarely had a coating on the rear element
Really?
My 1950's Carl Zeis Cardinar 100/4 has a coated rear element, just like my Mamiya/Sekor 50/2.
Those are the only ones I've taken apart, so I know for sure, but lots of others really look like their rear elements are coated too, judging by the reflections.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 11:35:02 No.2615360 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612958
That's interesting that you couldn't tell the difference with flare and ghosting. gj on admitting you were wrong anon

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Film vs Digital: Lenses, Does It Matter?