[jatrax]

An old Soviet lens Kaleynar 5N (100 2,8) failing to handle a backlit scene. In good light it performs as good as 60-250 at this focal length, and even manages to produce a more pleasing colour.

I think you be surprised what a little PP could do with that image, bring up the shadows add a little dehaze and contrast. But honestly I like it as a silhouette.

[Stagnant]

I know, that it is possible to regain some of the shadow details and minimize the effect of haze, but that was not the point. I intended to show the manifestations of lense's weaknesses in this kind of light. From my experience modern Pentax lenses perform much better against the bright light. I am not trying to make a rule out of it, but rather to pinpoint the aspects where older lenses can be disadvantaged.
P.S. if someone wants a RAW file to fiddle with, I can upload it somewhere.

[jatrax]

I intended to show the manifestations of lense's weaknesses in this kind of light. From my experience modern Pentax lenses perform much better against the bright light.

I think it is more the individual lens rather than a film versus digital. For example the DA 12-24 performs horribly in any situation that has the sun in it but the da*16-50 does fairly well. Modern coatings are without question better and that does make a difference but not all film era lenses perform poorly. A good lens then is still a good lens.

[Stagnant]

I think it is more the individual lens rather than a film versus digital. For example the DA 12-24 performs horribly in any situation that has the sun in it but the da*16-50 does fairly well. Modern coatings are without question better and that does make a difference but not all film era lenses perform poorly. A good lens then is still a good lens.

Sure, as I pointed out older lenses should not perform worse by default. As you suggested this is a case of individual lens.

[jgnfld]

I know, that it is possible to regain some of the shadow details and minimize the effect of haze, but that was not the point. I intended to show the manifestations of lense's weaknesses in this kind of light. ...

All true. But that said, a further point, or perhaps an alternative view, is that in the end "performance" is a function of your whole system from framing and clicking the shutter to final printing.

[Nicolas06]

I think you be surprised what a little PP could do with that image, bring up the shadows add a little dehaze and contrast. But honestly I like it as a silhouette.

if a 10% constrast is not visible because it was registered at 1% and everything under 5% is washed out on a given lense the post processing will bring back the 10% contrast, true... That may introduce some artifact, bring noise up, make the bokeh nervous or need to post process differently depending of the area.

If a better lense is able to register 10% contrast as 10% contrast on the same scene and 5% contrast as 5% constrast, then you don't need post processing at all, you don't increase noise, degrade bokeh or whatever and you have the 5% constract detail visible that where lost in the firs t scene.

Lenses like DA15, DA21, DA35 ltd do a very good job in contra light and flare resistance and tend to provide better results for this kind of situations, even after some other lenses got the change to get post processed.

It is a case by case basis, of course.

[quant2325]

The answer to the OP's question is obviously yes and no. The new lenses have better coatings and perhaps tolerances with the cheaper lenses. We should expect less purple fringing, CA and flare (not that PF matters with LightRoom). On the other hand, a FF lens on an APS-C sensor has advantages. For example, the worst part of any round lens is the resolution in the extreme corners. These corners don't cover the APS-C sensor like they would on a FF. The cost of legacy glass is less, giving the option for more lenses in the bag of anyone who can use a manual lens (like most of use with gray hair). Bokeh is another issue, with some people clamoring for a certain "look" not seen in years that can only be found on older lenses, that may not be as sharp as modern counterparts. There are pluses and minuses to legacy lenses, and like almost everything else it boils down to personal preference. If cost were no object everyone would probably be better off with newer glass, but that isn't the case with most photographers.

[Wild Mark]

I've been thinking about this topic recently (and it is doing my head in). Would it be fair to say that the legacy FF lenses will actually perform better, or to their "lines per mm" specification, on an actual FF sensor when compared to the APS-C sensor? DA lenses are optimised for the smaller sensor and in so doing might pack more "lines per mm" specification than their FF cousins (by design). That is, the FF legacy lenses were not designed for the camera digital enlargement that increases the APS-C image size to a FF equivalence (is this correct this statement?). If the latter statement is true, then this would explain, in part, the relatively increased incidence of PF in images taken with a legacy FF lens (i.e. the APS-C sensor and digital enlargement naturally enhances optical flaws).

So if my logic/ understanding is correct, then, it would be fair to say that the legacy FF lenses will actually perform better on a FF sensor than on a APS-C sensor (i.e. no digital enhancement to attain FF equivalence). This seems to match my observations of legacy lenses fitted to my fathers Sony A7r camera.

Anyway just thoughts.

[vonBaloney]

I've been thinking about this topic recently (and it is doing my head in). Would it be fair to say that the legacy FF lenses will actually perform better, or to their "lines per mm" specification, on an actual FF sensor when compared to the APS-C sensor? DA lenses are optimised for the smaller sensor and in so doing might pack more "lines per mm" specification than their FF cousins (by design). That is, the FF legacy lenses were not designed for the camera digital enlargement that increases the APS-C image size to a FF equivalence (is this correct this statement?). If the latter statement is true, then this would explain, in part, the relatively increased incidence of PF in images taken with a legacy FF lens (i.e. the APS-C sensor and digital enlargement naturally enhances optical flaws).

So if my logic/ understanding is correct, then, it would be fair to say that the legacy FF lenses will actually perform better on a FF sensor than on a APS-C sensor (i.e. no digital enhancement to attain FF equivalence). This seems to match my observations of legacy lenses fitted to my fathers Sony A7r camera.

Anyway just thoughts.

Yes, despite the "sweet spot" argument that APS-C is getting the best part of the circle, I think in practice we will find that everything looks better on FF (if using the whole frame). Some of it will come down to pixel density. I'm guessing something like a 36MP sensor, which would be bigger pixels than the K-3 but smaller than the K-5, so similar to the K-S2 at the pixel level but with a larger surface area so less magnification to make equivalent sized prints...

[Wild Mark]

I know it isn't as simple as indicated. Most legacy lenses, for example, do not have aspherical elements - thus can't control certain aberrations as well. I get that, but in comparative terms, my thoughts are that the enhancement of any aberrations by the digital enlargement process is probably emphasising these optical flaws much more than the flaw itself. Thus, most legacy lenses will probably please users on FF much more than on APS-C ....... anyway, proof will be in the pudding.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to play with my legacy lenses on the K3 and have fun knowing that FF is but a few more night sleeps away .... sigh

(footnote - I note that the 'value' of FF legacy lenses (the good ones) are starting to climb again if sale data on ebay is anything to go by .... perhaps there are more Pentax users out there than we think - lol)

[pathdoc]

Legacy glass is sought by many who have M42 or K mount adapters and compatible registry distances for correct focus - Canon, Sony, micro 4/3 etc. It's not just us Pentax people.

[zoolander]

Would it be fair to say that the legacy FF lenses will actually perform better, or to their "lines per mm" specification, on an actual FF sensor when compared to the APS-C sensor?

No not necissarily. It comes down to the airy disks of the lens and whether they correspond to the pixel pitch.

DA lenses are optimised for the smaller sensor and in so doing might pack more "lines per mm" specification than their FF cousins (by design). That is, the FF legacy lenses were not designed for the camera digital enlargement that increases the APS-C image size to a FF equivalence (is this correct this statement?).

DA lens are made with better materials than many older legacy lenses, and are projecting an image circle to suit the crop sensor rather than that of the 35mm size. The airy disks of the DA lenses correspond to the pixel pitch. There is no digital enlargement, the statement is incorrect.

Spiros Heniadis explains airy disks here:

You Tube

You Tube

The situation with Canon users regrading using FF lenses on crop or even on the 50mp 5D, is that Canon recommends certain lenses to suit either sized sensor.

What is probably "doing your head in" is that the Sony Bionz image processing firmware is removing the purple fringing from the images. They expected folks would use old lenses, so they made CA removal possible. Turn off CA removal and see what you get.

I have a Fujifilm camera that removes the red veins from eye's automatically.

I'd say its just Bionz removing CA's and not the supposed miracle of FF.