The Truth about so called Digitally Optimized Lens


Status
Not open for further replies.

sharf

New Member
Dec 7, 2005
113
0
0
Toa Payoh
#1
Hi People,

Have been wondering about this topic for a couple of days. I think at this moment the so called digitally optimized lens are only a marketing ploy by the lens manufacturers. These lens would not work on cameras with Full Frame sensors, you would have dark edges in the corners since the lens is smaller that the sensor.

Let us look at a scenario when the default sensor size of all Camera bodies are full frame and I think the day is not too far away (probably around 3-5 years). Does that mean all the current so called digitally optimized lens would be unusable in these camera's.

In that case isnt it advisable not to go for these Digital lens and stick with film lenses.

Any thoughts....

Regards

Sharf
 

Ian

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,548
0
0
56
Perth Australia
#2
sharf said:
Hi People,
Have been wondering about this topic for a couple of days. I think at this moment the so called digitally optimized lens are only a marketing ploy by the lens manufacturers. These lens would not work on cameras with Full Frame sensors, you would have dark edges in the corners since the lens is smaller that the sensor.
This topic has been debated to death already!

Now to answer your question on marketing ploy shows you have little or no idea about the costs involved in designing and producing a lens to a marketable state. The cost runs in to literally a million plus dollars by the time you include tooling, design and testing. Such costs are not taken by manufacturers lightly and they won't do it unless a lens is going to be in production for a fairly long period of time, normally 4-5 years at a minimum. So by any viable definition they are not a ploy.

sharf said:
Let us look at a scenario when the default sensor size of all Camera bodies are full frame and I think the day is not too far away (probably around 3-5 years). Does that mean all the current so called digitally optimized lens would be unusable in these camera's.

In that case isnt it advisable not to go for these Digital lens and stick with film lenses.
Firstly you are making an assumption that may or maybe not correct. According to various conferences and speaches at seminars by Fuji's camera designers and top management they as a manufacturer expect to see the demise of full frame sensor technology inside 5-8 years as it's viewed as a stop gap design to appease the existing SLR lens owners. This is a viewpoint that I fully support.

Your second point while correct regarding their unsability on film SLRs is correct. However an often not discussed point is that the cost of a pair of wide angle Nikkors for example a 10.5 FE and a 12-24 DX Nikkor is around $4,000 which is about the same as a single 14mm Nikkor. Speaking from a professional phtoographers point of view such an outlay is small change compared to the outright benefits the 1.5x FLM brings with long lenses.

Ian
 

Jul 17, 2005
2,504
0
0
33
Clementi
#3
there is a difference between digitall optimised and digital only lenses. i think you are getting mixed up.

Digitally optimised - lenses configured such that lgiht that enters is 90 degrees to the centre

digital only - lenses that have smaller image circle and as such can only be used on APSC sensors.

digital only lenses are cheaper than if they were full frame because they are easier to produce. ithas resulted in some good lenses like 10-22, sigma 18-200, sigma 30mm f/1.4
 

sharf

New Member
Dec 7, 2005
113
0
0
Toa Payoh
#4
Thank you folks for the answer,,,

Yeah I am a newbie and hence this probably audatious question.

Anyway, I learnt a new thing and thanks for all the reply....

Cheers.

Sharf
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom