Old film lenses are no good for digital

p38arover · 10-17-2016, 04:54 AM

Tonight at a model shoot at our camera club, we had a professional portrait photographer set up her studio flash equipment to give us some tutoring on portrait shots. She gave us suitable manual settings for her lights and recommended we use a 50mm lens.

When she asked what lens I was using I said an old manual lens from my film days. It was a Pentax-A 50mm f1.7. She said it wouldn't be as good as a digital lens as the design wasn't optimised for digital. I didn't have another 50mm with me so I went with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC for the first couple of shots. (If I'd had another it would have been my Super Takumar screw mount 55mm f1.8

)

Then I tried the Pentax-A and I reckon those pix are better than those of the Sigma.

I forgot to have a model release signed so I'm not sure if I can post pix here. Maybe I can crop some heavily to show the image quality.

**pepperberry farm** · 10-17-2016, 05:05 AM

or, at least, have the "pro" photographer pick out the shots taken with the manual vs 'optimised' lens....

AldaCZ · 10-17-2016, 05:13 AM

**BigMackCam** · 10-17-2016, 05:21 AM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by p38arover

She said it wouldn't be as good as a digital lens as the design wasn't optimised for digital.

Such a sweeping generalisation from someone who should know better...

photoptimist · 10-17-2016, 05:56 AM - **4 Likes**

Although there are optical engineering reasons why lenses need to be different between film and digital (e.g., the glass cover over the sensor changes the paths of the light rays and the relative shininess of the sensor affects sensitivity to oblique angle rays), these effects really only impact vignetting and corner sharpness of zooms and wider-angle lenses and might have a slight effect on center sharpness of wide-open large aperture lenses.

But in the context of most portraiture, it's silly.

It's one of the many technically true by practically meaningless beliefs in photography that do more to sell new kit than create better pictures.

normhead · 10-17-2016, 06:00 AM - **2 Likes**

My first question would have been... "Why do you believe that?"

**UncleVanya** · 10-17-2016, 06:09 AM - **3 Likes**

Remember that so many of the pros shoot Canon that they can only shoot their film era lenses through glass adapters or on other cameras. There is only opinion and no testing. The marketing machine wins with no counter examples to challenge it.

**ChrisPlatt** · 10-17-2016, 06:10 AM - **2 Likes**

She's a professional, so obviously she can't be wrong!

In the interest of LBA, perhaps it would be best to let the truth remain our little secret...

Chris

**TER-OR** · 10-17-2016, 06:11 AM

Maybe the cheap zooms, but even some of those hit well above their cost.

Many people don't know old lenses are still usable - though different systems make it very difficult. We're fortunate Pentax kept the K mount, it's one reason many of us chose the brand. And plenty of us have shown images with kit 50mm f/2 lenses can be outstanding. Indeed, because you have to very closely monitor the lens settings I think you're more likely to nail exposure with vintage lenses, which always helps image quality.

If vintage lenses suck so hard, why does an A-50 f1.2 sell for $500?

Not a Number · 10-17-2016, 06:21 AM

The thought is that there is more light reflected from digital sensors vs film and film era lenses aren't coated to reduce the return reflection.

How valid this is I don't know - certainly to some degree. I seem to remember the Polaroid Monochrome Instant 35mm film as being very shiny, almost metallic looking - and often delivering very stunning results.

The effects would probably mostly be in CA, desaturation and loss of contrast.

Camera Clubs arrange these situations mainly for the experience that otherwise may never arise for mere mortals.

On the other hand many film era lenses are built a lot better than digital

Fogel70 · 10-17-2016, 06:34 AM - **1 Like**

I thought all lenses where analog? (they capture analog light)

If knowing the difference between lenses designed for analog film or digital sensors (which actually are analog sensors) it's easy to understand that they both have advantages and disadvantages.
Sometimes the difference is minimal. FI comparing A 50/1.7 with DA 50/1.8 will not make a huge difference.

AldaCZ · 10-17-2016, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

I thought all lenses where analog? (they capture analog light)

If knowing the difference between lenses designed for analog film or digital sensors (which actually are analog sensors) it's easy to understand that they both have advantages and disadvantages.
Sometimes the difference is minimal. FI comparing A 50/1.7 with DA 50/1.8 will not make a huge difference.

I have compared M50 1,7 vs DA50 1,8 - the newer may be more flare resistant, Plastic and has AF

- have not shot walls, just people

**exposeric** · 10-17-2016, 06:40 AM - **1 Like**

Old film lenses are no good for the photo market. They would like to sell the new lenses. If I would have enough money I certainly will buy some new lenses. Most profs will tell you that they use a state of the art equipment, even when the take old lenses for some reason. I've excellent results with lenses from the 50s, 60s and 70s.

pathdoc · 10-17-2016, 07:24 AM - **1 Like**

Who was the person who claimed this? PM me if you like, but I already have my suspicions, and if so then my opinion of that person is now lower by far than it already was.

bdery · 10-17-2016, 07:52 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by p38arover

She said it wouldn't be as good as a digital lens as the design wasn't optimised for digital.

It's a broad generalization. There is SOME truth to it, especially regarding zooms which are way better now (thanks to digital design, improvements in coatings, manufacturing possibilities, etc). There is also some truth when considering primes. An old 50mm will be plenty sharp, but is likely to show more CA and PF. It might also be subject to more flare, although Pentax SMC is pretty good for this.

There is also the fact that newer designs are generally more telecentric because a digital sensor has a narrower angle of acceptance than film.

That being said, people are still shooting beautiful images with older lenses. some of these have artistic qualities which balance their technical limitations (such as they are).

Originally posted by Fogel70

I thought all lenses where analog? (they capture analog light)

They capture nothing, but let light pass through

distorting it in the process.

10-17-2016, 04:54 AM	#1
p38arover Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Western Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,084	Old film lenses are no good for digital Tonight at a model shoot at our camera club, we had a professional portrait photographer set up her studio flash equipment to give us some tutoring on portrait shots. She gave us suitable manual settings for her lights and recommended we use a 50mm lens. When she asked what lens I was using I said an old manual lens from my film days. It was a Pentax-A 50mm f1.7. She said it wouldn't be as good as a digital lens as the design wasn't optimised for digital. I didn't have another 50mm with me so I went with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC for the first couple of shots. (If I'd had another it would have been my Super Takumar screw mount 55mm f1.8 ) Then I tried the Pentax-A and I reckon those pix are better than those of the Sigma. I forgot to have a model release signed so I'm not sure if I can post pix here. Maybe I can crop some heavily to show the image quality.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What are good vintage lenses for video?	Taiwwa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-29-2016 11:30 AM
Current recommendations for good, old 300mm lenses?	tws1098	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	09-18-2015 12:35 PM
why are there no digital backs for 35mm cameras?	Egg Salad	General Talk	56	02-05-2010 05:40 PM
are 6x7 lenses good on digital bodies?	mike.hiran	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	01-18-2009 03:04 PM
What are some good old cheap MF lenses?	fuzzybabybunny	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	11-30-2006 10:38 AM

10-17-2016, 05:05 AM	#2
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,678	or, at least, have the "pro" photographer pick out the shots taken with the manual vs 'optimised' lens....

10-17-2016, 05:13 AM	#3
AldaCZ Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: North Bohemia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,251	Really? Maybe on FF but crop... M version Myself having both Pentax has less purple fringing but it's not perfect Alucard \| Ale?87 \| Flickr Vampire \| smc Pentax M 50 1,7 \| Ale?87 \| Flickr

10-17-2016, 05:21 AM - 4 Likes	#4
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,673	Originally posted by p38arover She said it wouldn't be as good as a digital lens as the design wasn't optimised for digital. Such a sweeping generalisation from someone who should know better...

10-17-2016, 05:56 AM - 4 Likes	#5
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,123	Although there are optical engineering reasons why lenses need to be different between film and digital (e.g., the glass cover over the sensor changes the paths of the light rays and the relative shininess of the sensor affects sensitivity to oblique angle rays), these effects really only impact vignetting and corner sharpness of zooms and wider-angle lenses and might have a slight effect on center sharpness of wide-open large aperture lenses. But in the context of most portraiture, it's silly. It's one of the many technically true by practically meaningless beliefs in photography that do more to sell new kit than create better pictures.

10-17-2016, 06:00 AM - 2 Likes	#6
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	My first question would have been... "Why do you believe that?"

10-17-2016, 06:09 AM - 3 Likes	#7
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,403	Remember that so many of the pros shoot Canon that they can only shoot their film era lenses through glass adapters or on other cameras. There is only opinion and no testing. The marketing machine wins with no counter examples to challenge it.

10-17-2016, 06:10 AM - 2 Likes	#8
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	She's a professional, so obviously she can't be wrong! In the interest of LBA, perhaps it would be best to let the truth remain our little secret... Chris

10-17-2016, 06:11 AM	#9
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Maybe the cheap zooms, but even some of those hit well above their cost. Many people don't know old lenses are still usable - though different systems make it very difficult. We're fortunate Pentax kept the K mount, it's one reason many of us chose the brand. And plenty of us have shown images with kit 50mm f/2 lenses can be outstanding. Indeed, because you have to very closely monitor the lens settings I think you're more likely to nail exposure with vintage lenses, which always helps image quality. If vintage lenses suck so hard, why does an A-50 f1.2 sell for $500?

10-17-2016, 06:21 AM	#10
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	The thought is that there is more light reflected from digital sensors vs film and film era lenses aren't coated to reduce the return reflection. How valid this is I don't know - certainly to some degree. I seem to remember the Polaroid Monochrome Instant 35mm film as being very shiny, almost metallic looking - and often delivering very stunning results. The effects would probably mostly be in CA, desaturation and loss of contrast. Camera Clubs arrange these situations mainly for the experience that otherwise may never arise for mere mortals. On the other hand many film era lenses are built a lot better than digital

10-17-2016, 06:34 AM - 1 Like	#11
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	I thought all lenses where analog? (they capture analog light) If knowing the difference between lenses designed for analog film or digital sensors (which actually are analog sensors) it's easy to understand that they both have advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes the difference is minimal. FI comparing A 50/1.7 with DA 50/1.8 will not make a huge difference.

10-17-2016, 06:37 AM	#12
AldaCZ Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: North Bohemia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,251	Originally posted by Fogel70 I thought all lenses where analog? (they capture analog light) If knowing the difference between lenses designed for analog film or digital sensors (which actually are analog sensors) it's easy to understand that they both have advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes the difference is minimal. FI comparing A 50/1.7 with DA 50/1.8 will not make a huge difference. I have compared M50 1,7 vs DA50 1,8 - the newer may be more flare resistant, Plastic and has AF - have not shot walls, just people

10-17-2016, 06:40 AM - 1 Like	#13
exposeric Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 201	Old film lenses are no good for the photo market. They would like to sell the new lenses. If I would have enough money I certainly will buy some new lenses. Most profs will tell you that they use a state of the art equipment, even when the take old lenses for some reason. I've excellent results with lenses from the 50s, 60s and 70s.

10-17-2016, 07:24 AM - 1 Like	#14
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Who was the person who claimed this? PM me if you like, but I already have my suspicions, and if so then my opinion of that person is now lower by far than it already was.

10-17-2016, 07:52 AM - 1 Like	#15
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by p38arover She said it wouldn't be as good as a digital lens as the design wasn't optimised for digital. It's a broad generalization. There is SOME truth to it, especially regarding zooms which are way better now (thanks to digital design, improvements in coatings, manufacturing possibilities, etc). There is also some truth when considering primes. An old 50mm will be plenty sharp, but is likely to show more CA and PF. It might also be subject to more flare, although Pentax SMC is pretty good for this. There is also the fact that newer designs are generally more telecentric because a digital sensor has a narrower angle of acceptance than film. That being said, people are still shooting beautiful images with older lenses. some of these have artistic qualities which balance their technical limitations (such as they are). Originally posted by Fogel70 I thought all lenses where analog? (they capture analog light) They capture nothing, but let light pass through distorting it in the process.