[Jonathan Mac]

Good lenses are good lenses, regardless of the recording medium.

[normhead]

Good lenses are good lenses, regardless of the recording medium.

My experience would suggest as much. Despite having heard many time this theory of there being lenses good on film that aren't good on digital, I've never seen an empirical evaluation of the theory. Only blow hards who's judgement I don't trust going on and on about things they claim to know.

[WorksAsIntended]

My experience would suggest as much. Despite having heard many time this theory of there being lenses good on film that aren't good on digital, I've never seen an empirical evaluation of the theory. Only blow hards who's judgement I don't trust going on and on about things they claim to know.

On this I got to agree. Sharpness in optics is defined by the mininal structure that can be displayed. Of course a sensor or film can have an unsufficiant resolution to display the maximal resolution achievable by the lens, extrem example a 4pixxel sensor, and there can be funny effects with grids of sensors, but generally, the sharpness of a lens is not at all influenced by the recording technique, both are planes in which the lens project.

Old lenses are different most times, but sharp stays sharp as much as soft stays soft for sure.

Abbe remains basically true for lenses.

[Wheatfield]

I have a number of old lenses amongst which the F F1.4/50mm, A F1.4/50mm, F4/K200mm, Takumar Bayonet F2.5/135mm and the F3.5/35-105. I have tried all these lenses on my different camera's: Samsung GX-10, K-7, K-01 and the K-3II. The results are always the same. They are soft, very soft I would say. A professional photographer once told me that they are all designed for film camera's and that it is a problem to adjust digital camera's, that is the sensors, to that old glass. So it is easier for the manufacturers to design glass that is adjusted to digital camera's. They all show sharp results through the viewfinder but the result is soft.
For me the old glass was a reason to buy the Samsung at the time, I was under the impression I could use all that old glass. But unfortunately, all that new glass is so much better than the old ones on a DSLR.
So, is there a reason why old glass gives a much softer result than new ones? Is there indeed a technical reason for it or is it just "a fairy tale"? Or do they give better results if I used a K-1?
And to be honest: I shot a lot of pictures in the film era and I am not inclined to start again with a film camera now I have experienced all the joys of digital. The only lens that gives a sharp result is the F F4/28-70, but that one is a bit dull on the colour front.

Some lenses are better than others. Some of the lenses you mention are good on digital, though they need to be stopped down a bit, some are OK, but not great. The F 50/1.4 is getting decent by about f/4 and quite good at f/8, but then, that's how it was on film also. The A50/1.4 is quite good on digital, but needs to be stopped down a couple of stops, just like it was on film. The same with the 35-105 f/3.5
If your experience showed them to be "soft, very soft", I question if your camera was the culprit (AF adjust not being done) or an out of calibration focusing path, the lenses in question were broken, or if, in the case of the manual focus lenses, you were actually focusing them properly to begin with.

My point here is that your premise " old glass gives a much softer result than new ones" is very suspect.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 03-02-2020 at 01:53 PM. Reason: spelling

[normhead]

Some lenses are better than others. Sme of the lenses you mention are good on digital, though they need to be stopped down a bit, some are OK, but not great. The F 50/1.4 is getting decent by about f/4 and quite good at f/8, but then, that's how it was on film also. The A50/1.4 is quite good on digital, but needs to be stopped down a couple of stops, just like it was on film. The same with the 35-105 f/3.5
If your experience showed them to be "soft, very soft", I question if your camera was the culprit (AF adjust not being done) or an out of calibration focusing path, the lenses in question were broken, or if, in the case of the manual focus lenses, you were actually focusing them properly to begin with.

My point here is that your premise " old glass gives a much softer result than new ones" is very suspect.

Ya, my Super Tac 35 3.5 was just as sharp as my DA 35 2.4, so you got me there. And they tested about the same in my polls.

For those who don't know, the DA 35 2.4 and DA 70 were the two best test chart lenses from Pentax before the DFA lenses. The Super takes 35 3.5 was kind of the 31 before there was a 31 ltd.

Another point being, though the DFA'a are better for edge to edge shooting, they may not be at all improved in the centre, On the majority of the images people actually take, edge sharpness is completely over rated. Much of the time the edges are out of focus and how the lens renders out of focus areas is more important than how sharp the edges are. In a sense, for out of focus rendering, softness is an advantage creating smoother bokeh. The amazing thing about the DFA 50 1.4 to me is it's both sharp on the edges and produces the best bokeh I've seen in a lens of it's class including big spender lenses like Zeiss lenses. But you can get that same beautiful bokeh with a centre sharp edge soft lens as long as your subject is in the centre surrounded by bokeh, or as Pentax used to say, "the way people take pictures." Essentially when you buy a DFA "modern glass for modern sensors" lens, you are buying an improved edge, not necessarily an improved centre.

[Serkevan]

My experience would suggest as much. Despite having heard many time this theory of there being lenses good on film that aren't good on digital, I've never seen an empirical evaluation of the theory. Only blow hards who's judgement I don't trust going on and on about things they claim to know.

Several hundred wedding pictures with a 1990 Tokina 70-210/4.5 (on a K-1) and a Canon 70-200/4L (the 1999 non-IS one) later, no complaints except for the darned Tokina having very glowy highlights at f/4.5, I suppose the coatings on that one aren't the best and strong light diffuses a bit; it's a problem the Tokina RMC ii 80-200/4 also has. And that has nothing to do with it being a film lens - the Canon is a champ and has a nicely gentle and pleasing rendering while still being sharp.
Then again, so does the M50/1.7... or the M135/3.5. Heck, the M20/4 at f/5.6 or f/8 is a razor blade anywhere outside the corners and it's almost twenty years my senior...

I can't even imagine the FA Limited or Star glass.

[WorksAsIntended]

Some lenses are better than others. Sme of the lenses you mention are good on digital, though they need to be stopped down a bit, some are OK, but not great. The F 50/1.4 is getting decent by about f/4 and quite good at f/8, but then, that's how it was on film also. The A50/1.4 is quite good on digital, but needs to be stopped down a couple of stops, just like it was on film. The same with the 35-105 f/3.5
If your experience showed them to be "soft, very soft", I question if your camera was the culprit (AF adjust not being done) or an out of calibration focusing path, the lenses in question were broken, or if, in the case of the manual focus lenses, you were actually focusing them properly to begin with.

My point here is that your premise " old glass gives a much softer result than new ones" is very suspect.

You missunderstand me. I know there are a lot of sharp old lenses and by no means i ment to say that every old lens is soft and neither that every modern one is sharp, but lens design also evolved to sharper lenses statistically speaking. Simply because they are now easier to produce and high on demand as a hell lit of people pixxel peep these days.

The sharpness of the lens is basically determined by a combination of abbe and beam wastes for different wave lengths and off/on center points. Both last parts are enhanced by aspherical and anormal elements, something more heavily used today than in older days. Modern lenses also tend to be bigger, looking at the very sharp ones like all the new rf lenses, the dfa50, the full sigma art primes lineup to achieve the demanded sharpness.

They main point is, a lenses sharpness is not determined by the recording medium.

Edit: I could swear when I wrote this you wrote your text with a quote from me. Either I mixxed something up very badly or you edited it. Sorry for any confusion.

---

Last edited by WorksAsIntended; 03-02-2020 at 03:10 PM.

[bdery]

F F1.4/50mm

A F1.4/50mm

Those two are virtually the same. They both are quite good, comparing well to the FA50 F1.4. While they can't compare to the newest (DFA 50mm for instance, see here) they are probably as good as many modern zooms and better than some.

F4/K200mm

Should be pretty good, however will suffer from some aberrations.

Takumar Bayonet F2.5/135mm

A passable lens, decent but nothing special.

F3.5/35-105

That one is sometimes called the "stack of primes". It should be very good.

When using manual lenses, focus can be hard to achieve. Using the viewfinder with zoom function, on a tripod, can help.

[normhead]

When using manual lenses, focus can be hard to achieve. Using the viewfinder with zoom function, on a tripod, can help.

Live View is an absolute joy for manual focusing. When I did my test of the 35 3.5 I'd yet to discover it.

[redcat]

i had a Tak 50mm f1.4 and a Helios 58mm f2, they are not famous for sharpness but rather smooth bokeh, when focus right, the focus point is razor sharp on my K3, so i guess the focus technique is important here, i use focus peaking and shoot a few shots each time just in case one is misfocus (the "film" is free)

[ChristianRock]

Old glass is often as soft as the price you paid for it. Pentax K-1 doesn't turn a cheap old soft lens into a sharp one. Some old lenses are sharp , so aren't, this has to be checked in lens review sections. Usually, old sharp glass is not very cheap.

Come on... have you ever seen a Pentax 50mm lens (f/1.7, f/1.4 or f/1.2) that wasn't biting sharp from f/4 and smaller? in the case of the f/1.4 and f/1.7 they're very cheap - I have an M 50 1.4 that I've been trying to sell for months for 50 dollars and haven't had a single offer. M 50 1.7 lenses sell for 30 dollars these days. That is obviously cheap, and that glass is obviously sharp. Sharper than the FA 28-70mm f4, for sure - so to me it's quite obvoius that the OP is doing something wrong.

[normhead]

i had a Tak 5mm f1.4 and a Helios 58mm f2, they are not famous for sharpness but rather smooth bokeh, when focus right, the focus point is razor sharp on my K3, so i guess the focus technique is important here, i use focus peaking and shoot a few shots each time just in case one is misfocus (the "film" is free)

I move the focus point between shots, because on those tiny little screens and viewfinders, I often can't tell which is going to look better between two shots were the focus is 1/2 inch apart. The subject may be the same but placing the DoF in front or behind the part of the subject that is in focus can completely change the image. If you've used 8x10 or 4x5 view cameras, any 35mm or 645 is frustrating. I'm tempted to use my flu card to at least get the image to iPad size from time to time. But you'd still need a manual aperture to see exactly what you have.

---------- Post added 03-02-20 at 12:08 PM ----------

Come on... have you ever seen a Pentax 50mm lens (f/1.7, f/1.4 or f/1.2) that wasn't biting sharp from f/4 and smaller? in the case of the f/1.4 and f/1.7 they're very cheap - I have an M 50 1.4 that I've been trying to sell for months for 50 dollars and haven't had a single offer. M 50 1.7 lenses sell for 30 dollars these days. That is obviously cheap, and that glass is obviously sharp. Sharper than the FA 28-70mm f4, for sure - so to me it's quite obvoius that the OP is doing something wrong.

No kidding, my Super-tak 35 3.5 was given to me by the guy who bought my Sigma DP 2. We had to drive out a half hour to meet, and when he left my car after I ran him though how the camera worked he handed me the 35 3.5 and said, "here i don't use this anymore." It doesn't get any cheaper than that.

[biz-engineer]

the f/1.4 and f/1.7 they're very cheap

They are primes, exceptionally good . FA zooms generally aren't as good . The problem with lenses is that some lenses prove the general rule wrong, which make choice of the right lenses time consuming.

[ChristianRock]

No kidding, my Super-tak 35 3.5 was given to me by the guy who bought my Sigma DP 2. We had to drive out a half hour to meet, and when he left my car after I ran him though how the camera worked he handed me the 35 3.5 and said, "here i don't use this anymore." It doesn't get any cheaper than that.

Sounds like I need to try the 35mm f/3.5 sometime, as 35mm is my "desert island" focal length. They seem to become rarer and rarer these days, I think people with K-1 cameras are holding on to them as they are said to be very good on the full frame sensor.
And that was very nice that you just got one as a freebie! Nice score.

[ChristianRock]

They are primes, exceptionally good . FA zooms generally aren't as good . The problem with lenses is that some lenses prove the general rule wrong, which make choice of the right lenses time consuming.

Unless you use the general rule that older primes are usually good (at least the ones from the big camera manufacturers) while the zooms are typically bad? Of course there are exceptions on both generalizations, but as a general rule I find them useful.

Back in 2013 when I first got a DSLR (a K20D) and I was quite surprised by how a freebie M 50mm f2 lens that came with it was quite sharper than the 18-55mm kit lens (AL II version - then still a current optic), in all common apertures. Then I read that the M 50 1.7 was quite better, and I found a really cheap one here in Georgia... and the rest is history, I've been a fan of old glass ever since