Digital vs Film Lenses
March 23, 2008
My previous post triggered a brief discussion in the Comments section about the possible differences between lenses designed for film cameras and those designed for digital cameras.
Indeed, I queried whether in fact there is any difference, or is it all just hype?
Well, I was sufficiently intrigued by this that I ferreted around a bit on the Web and came up with the following… just in case anyone’s equally as interested:
digital vs film lens on DigiForumz (forum discussion)
March 23, 2008 at 20:37 43
I’m going to post here, but I’m covering both this blog & the previous (concerning lens selection).
Having just gone through this entire process very recently I feel compelled, nay, required to throw in my two-pence worth. (you’ll thank me later, I’m certain)
The author at Robsinlight made several points that I had also read at another website (www.kenrockwell.com) during my run-up to purchase. The most important and striking mutual issue was the purchase of prime lenses over zooms. Of course, zooms are far more convenient by almost any measure, but that doesn’t make them better. I love my 50mm f/1.8 prime lens; best USD 80 I ever spent. But to be frank it does require much more work on my part to actually use the lens. I often find myself too far away or too close to a given subject and it is not always practical (or even possible) to move my body to a location that will give me the picture I want (the framing, if you will).
Granted, the primes tend to be much less expensive and suffer far less from distortions, but there is always a balancing act between convenience and accuracy. And perhaps an issue unaddressed by the posting is the one of dust and sensors. The more times a photographer must change lenses (as one would have to do when moving between prime lenses with different focal lengths while in the field) the more opportunities exist for dust/contaminants to enter the camera and land upon the sensor’s low pass filter. Once again, it’s another trade-off.
Finally, concerning the world of digital versus non-digital lenses I have also been told (and I make no claims regarding the accuracy of these statements) that the sensors in our digital cameras only ’see’ light that falls upon the sensor at a perpendicular angle to the sensor (striking the sensor head on). Film in film-based cameras absorbed (for lack of a better term) light from all directions; both direct and incidental. Digital lenses are supposed to focus more light into a uniform direction such that the photons strike the sensor head on. I have no idea of this is accurate or not, but it is something I have read and been told here and there.
There is one other item I personally wish to touch on and that is the difference between digital-only lenses and ‘normal’ lenses. Thus far I have been avoiding digital lenses for one reason: they won’t work on full-frame sensor cameras. Granted, at this time I do not own a full-frame sensor camera. They’re still too expensive. But I’m assuming these cameras will be much more reasonably priced in the years to come and suspect (and this is just my opinion) that they will be within the economic grasp of folks like us within 5-years.
As lenses, especially good ones, are not cheap I am very, very reluctant to spend any money on a lens that I could not use on a full-frame sensor camera. I’m guessing that in five years or so (assuming I remain loyal to my photography desires) I will want to upgrade to a full frame sensor camera and I will feel very stupid if I have to replace lenses simply because I purchased ones that were digital-only (reduced image sensor).
March 23, 2008 at 22:04 06
You’ve made some good/interesting points there, two particularly striking a resonance with me.
Given what I still regard as my principal raison d’etre for “doing” photography in the first place, I find a telephoto zoom to be almost indispensable, and…
thanks to a mate making me totally paranoid about getting dust on the sensor (by the simple expedient of giving a real-time demonstration of just how easily this can occur!) I now have a thing about not changing lenses unless I absolutely have to (hence one of the reasons I usually carry two cameras).
March 24, 2008 at 0:51 10
Oddly enough I’ve been considering a second camera for the purpose of having one for indoors and one for outdoors.
Great minds think alike.