View Poll Results: Do we really need to use 'digital' lens for our DSLR?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, must have.

    5 14.29%
  • No, don't think so

    22 62.86%
  • Don't know, not sure.

    8 22.86%
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Do we really need Digital Lens

  1. #1

    Default Do we really need Digital Lens

    Hey have you all ever consider if we really need to use 'digital' lens for our DSLR?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    of course not. but they are lighter and sometimes cheaper alternatives.

  3. #3

    Default

    its true tt the digital range are often lighter....but i dun tink its a muz....i am using nikon....but the dx range does not hav the aperature ring for use on my film SLRs....so wats the point....

    image quality wise....i tink we hav to look at an individual lens basis on a particluar body to decide which is better...

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Witness
    its true tt the digital range are often lighter....but i dun tink its a muz....i am using nikon....but the dx range does not hav the aperature ring for use on my film SLRs....so wats the point....

    image quality wise....i tink we hav to look at an individual lens basis on a particluar body to decide which is better...
    the dx lens have virgenting at the wide range on your film cam. my film cam can take G lens, but no point using dx coz of the vigentte

  5. #5

    Default

    whats a digital lens?

  6. #6

    Default

    I think the point of a 'digital' lens, or actually a DX designated lens by nikon and a EF-S lens (correct me on this part) by canon, is to have a wide angle lens suited for a sensor with a crop factor (1.5, 1.6 etc)

    Benefits of this is, the cheaper wide angle solution for a digital SLR, since you don't need the full image circle of the normal lens. (An extreme example is that you don't need a MF format's camera's lens for a SLR, since you don't need the usable image circle to be 6 by 4.5, etc etc)

    Also, MTF graphs don't fully apply to digital... reason being, theres no gradual fall off as compared to a normal film body, but an abrupt cut off above a certain frequency of lines that the sensor can take. So, again, in an extremist point of view, your lens don't have to be that perfect, thus a cheaper lens, with quality parts at the correct place.

    Price wise, its tons cheaper compared to the usual wide angle solutions..
    Look at the 18-70mm AF-S IF-ED DX lens...

    So many letters! I mean, although its a kit lens for the D70, it truely is a good lens at that price point. AF-S... how much does that already cost? Not even mentioning the ED and the wide zoom range. (on a side note, all that talk about back focussing is crap. Most of you don't have back focussing.. again, I said MOST.. not all)

    So in my opinion, YES. 'digital' lens are a need in this current age of dSLR, in order for cameras (or for purist, digital cameras) to progress..

    No average singaporean is going to fork out $1700 for the body, then another $1.5k for a wide angle solution, then a mid range zoom, then a etc etc etc


    Above is just my opinion, feel free to correct me.
    (I like people to correct me)

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Yes
    Two reasons off the top of my head:

    1 - the FLM causes new lenses like the fisheye not to have the full effect unless you have a digital lens like the 10.5DX. No other manufacturer has a fisheye for a DSLR

    2 - the sensor is sensative to the fact that light does not fall perpendicular to the sensor, causing more light fall off that the corners. Digital lens will collimate the light to fall more perpendicular at the corners, reducing light fall off

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •