[Cambo]

When I switched to digital at first got only a body (*istD) since my lens arsenal was pretty well populated. I have a thing for wide angles(SMC A 15/3.5, FA 20/2.8, FA*24/2, FA 28/2.8 and F17-28 fisheye zoom).

To my surprise, only the 20 and 28 are worth using on digital bodies (*istD & K20D). The others are worthless wide open and show lots of diffraction closed down.

My two 50's are Ok (FA50/1.4 & FA 50/2.8 macro). Me teles are fine too (FA 100/2.8 macro, FA 135/2.8 IF & FA* 200/2.8) except for the 135 which underexposes by 2/3 stop but gives sharp images at any aperture.

On the digital glass side, I have the DA 12-24, DA 18-55 ii and the DA 16-45 and all perform as expected.

Have you noticed or found a lens from your film era arsrnal, that produces undesirable results on digital bodies?

For me, its the SMC-A 15/3.5 and the FA*24/2 IF can make nice collectors items, but worthless as photo optics on digital bodies.

BTW, the first "optical" problem I discovered with digital photography, is that ALL my UV filters produce ghosting on every single highlight in the picture, that is not seen in viewfinder! From that day on, all my glass run naked through the woods.

Wow, I completely disagree with you there. It does take a while to get used to the slightly-wider-than-normal optical length of the 24, but man, it's sharp and contrasty from wide open, lovely bokeh and rendering, very little distortion, and VERY sharp stopped down. Yes, aberration is a BIT of an issue, but Lightroom/Photoshop takes care of that in a jiffy. On APSC, you're only using the sweet spot of the lens, and it is, indeed, sweet. I'm at my girlfriends right now; will post some pics when I get home.

Cheers,
Cameron

[rburgoss]

Wow, I completely disagree with you there. It does take a while to get used to the slightly-wider-than-normal optical length of the 24, but man, it's sharp and contrasty from wide open, lovely bokeh and rendering, very little distortion, and VERY sharp stopped down. Yes, aberration is a BIT of an issue, but Lightroom/Photoshop takes care of that in a jiffy. On APSC, you're only using the sweet spot of the lens, and it is, indeed, sweet. I'm at my girlfriends right now; will post some pics when I get home.

Cheers,
Cameron

You are probably right on this one. When I did my tests with the FA*24/2, I used my *istD which at that moment, gave me so bad results that I never even tried again. Now, some years later, it comes to my mind that THAT SPECIFIC lens had a cheapo Cokin Optilight UV filter (plastic-not glass) as protection, and I probably did my tests without removing the crappy filter. It was years later that I discovered all the ghostings and flares from filters, when I got my K20D (by late 2008). By those days, all my glass had new "better quality" coated filters from Hoya, Tiffen and a couple of B+W.

As I stated on my previous response. I fell (like many others) into the technical bandwagon being too picky at the technical side, using high res monitors and stopped looking at the whole pictures. It was not until going again through some of my older slides, that DO have the same (and sometimes worse) technical issues we've (I've) been complaining about legacy glass on digital bodies.

I am planning for this weekend, to grab my K20D and at least, the 15, 20, and 28 lenses, and do some tests wide open and stopping down one click at a time. Of course, none will have filters on!

I will sure post my findings.