Analogue Lenses on Digital Body ?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by CJB, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. CJB

    CJB Guest

    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.
     
    CJB, Dec 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. CJB

    John Bean Guest

    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.
     
    John Bean, Dec 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    Bronek Kozicki, Dec 20, 2005
    #3
  4. CJB

    BJ in Texas Guest

    || 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.

    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.
     
    BJ in Texas, Dec 20, 2005
    #4
  5. CJB

    Jim Guest

    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.
     
    Jim, Dec 20, 2005
    #5
  6. CJB

    Darrell Guest

    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
     
    Darrell, Dec 21, 2005
    #6
  7. CJB

    Colin D Guest

    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.
     
    Colin D, Dec 21, 2005
    #7
  8. CJB

    Stacey Guest

    Colin D wrote:

    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.
     
    Stacey, Dec 21, 2005
    #8
  9. 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*!

    ;)
     
    Brion K. Lienhart, Dec 21, 2005
    #9
  10. CJB

    Colin D Guest

    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.
     
    Colin D, Dec 21, 2005
    #10
  11. CJB

    John Bean Guest

    You're suffering from irony deficiency Colin.
     
    John Bean, Dec 21, 2005
    #11
  12. 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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 22, 2005
    #12
  13. 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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 22, 2005
    #13
  14. CJB

    Colin D Guest

    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.
     
    Colin D, Dec 22, 2005
    #14
  15. CJB

    Colin D Guest

    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.
    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.
     
    Colin D, Dec 22, 2005
    #15
  16. 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.
     
    Bronek Kozicki, Dec 22, 2005
    #16
  17. CJB

    Ole Larsen Guest

    Bronek Kozicki skrev: 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.
     
    Ole Larsen, Dec 22, 2005
    #17
  18. 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.
    similar, about $1300 , but Distagon is much more difficult to find.


    B.
     
    Bronek Kozicki, Dec 22, 2005
    #18
  19. 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, Dec 22, 2005
    #19
  20. CJB

    Ole Larsen Guest

    John A. Stovall skrev:
    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 ;-)
     
    Ole Larsen, Dec 22, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.