Will u still be buying non-digital lenses?

[Maltese]

Ok, I'm a Canon user and was asked by a Olympus owner what lenses should I get in future. I think Nikon user may have the same situation as Canon users hence I prefer not to pose in Canon section only.

4 third brand users have no lack of digital lenses for selection especially under the olympus camp where there is already a decent range of true digital lenses either for serious or casual applications.

Canon and Nikon users have a full range of film camera lenses which I think until now there are still lots of buyers. The weird thing is, isn't digital in the lime light now? So in future if a digital user would need a lens in a specific focal length and Canon or Nikon does not have it in digital version? Is it still worth-while to buy a film lenses that are made maybe 7-10 years ago?

We are changing digital bodies like no tomorrow and with Canon or Nikon still slow in releasing true digital lenses, will it come to a day when new versions of film lenses will stop being revised while replacing them are the true digital lenses instead?

If canon is pushing for full frame, then at least it makes sense for their film lenses to remains...then why sell digital lenses? Just to accomodate the lower range DSLR and tide through the period where utimately all will become full frame? So will Canon film lenses or digital lenses be obselete in future? What about Nikon? :dunno: :think: :dunno: :think:

 

[CYRN]

what is digital lens?:dunno: :dunno:

 

[jesser]

here, i'll take it that the 1.5x/1,6x sensor is another form of format or media in this digital photo world. just like cd, vcd and dvd........
there is no clear version on how nikon and canon system is heading to.......even if they are really heading toward full frame and may be in future all digital cam are going to be full frame,
i don't think price wise will be that friendly too. meantime enjoy what you have here, those small sensor do produce good photos with digital lens also.

 

[Michael]

what makes a lense digital?
why should a lense that worked well on your film camera not give you equally good results on your digital?
i applaud Nikon to support all their lenses all they way back to 1977 even on the new (semi-pro and pro) camera bodies. I find it a huge advantage that i can buy "cheap" manual lenses and use them on my digital camera. This allows me to get a lense even though i might not use that much....

 

[kelccm]

So what is digital lenses?? To me they are just a marketing tool to sell lenses to the mass consumer who are more price and weight sensitive.

 

[jesser]

Digital lens are those EF-S lens from Canon, DX lens from Nikon, DC lens from Sigma, and DI lens from Tamron. They are build mainly for AP-S sensor.
Theoretically these sensors need straight lights from the lens to hit directly onto the sensor in order to get the best image quality. With the normal film lens, which is cater for 35mm film size, light falls onto the sensor is at an angle along the sides and corners, hence images are not so kind of ‘great’.
In the other way, these digital lens are not meant for full frame size sensor. Back of lens are much nearer to the sensor and it will hit by the mirror in a film or full frame digital body. Another problem is they produces smaller images so vignetting will occurs in bigger sensor.

Read this from internet.

 

[arpinkor]

So what is digital lenses?? To me they are just a marketing tool to sell lenses to the mass consumer who are more price and weight sensitive.

People who have $$$ can also appreciate the reduction in weight of the smaller format lenses.

 

[NE clicks clicks]

Honestly, how many times are we able to tell whether a pic came from a film or a digital only lens ?
As currently, the market is dominated by 1.5x/1.6x LF DSLR, it is logical to make digital only lens as they are cheaper, hence will appeal more to the mass market. for those whose still own film or FF DSLR, they can fall back on the so call film lenses. At the same time enjoy the best of both world if they also owns APS-C size DSLR.
However when the day comes all DSLR becomes full frame, there is no such needs to distiguish between film or digital lenses. They will just make a single range of lenses for the market.

 

[wind30]

So what is digital lenses?? To me they are just a marketing tool to sell lenses to the mass consumer who are more price and weight sensitive.

not really. Olympus for one included some very useful functionality like AUTOMATIC dsitortion and viginetting correction. I don't REALLY know how they do it but most probably the lens can tell the body what lens it is and how much distortion and viginetting there is and allows the camera or raw software to correct it automatically.

Really quite a useful feature as the pictures come out with VERY LOW distortion and viginetting.

 

[skopio]

In the other way, these digital lens are not meant for full frame size sensor. Back of lens are much nearer to the sensor and it will hit by the mirror in a film or full frame digital body.

hit mirror? then won't it hit the mirror of the dslr too?

 

[Bernard Ong]

Whether its a digital lens or an 'analog' lens, a lens that take good pictures will the the lens i am buying.

 

[jesser]

Whether its a digital lens or an 'analog' lens, a lens that take good pictures will the the lens i am buying.

That is why the TS is wondering what kind of lenses one need to invest into.
digital lenses will not work on a 35mm camera body or full frame digital body.
where else those normal 35mm lenses is still able to work on a 1.5x/1.6x sensor body.
so if one invested heavily on those digital lenses and may be near future, all DSLR goes into full frame........these lenses will be useless.

 

[jesser]

hit mirror? then won't it hit the mirror of the dslr too?

it is design to fit on a 1.5x/1.6x sensor body.

 

[Caspere]

Investing in tools?

You invest in instruments that can give returns.

As for lenses, they are only tools which we use to create/make images.

 

[surge]

i would assume digital lens as lens which uses the 1.5x crop. and thus unsuitable for full frame usuage.

nowadays photography has developed somehow into electronics. very much electronic and technology. so like Pcs or other electronic gadgets...i would say i would buy what i would use today and not think about future compatability or investment. cos when you buy into electronic gadgets...you know in time w new development your gadget will be worth close to nothing.

i have DX lens and they are very good for current models like d200 ( for me its nikon) etc. in due time....maybe there will be a full frame and my 17-55 will be useless w that new fullframe. then again i am very happy w the DX format, the size of the lens and pictures i get...to me its as good as 35mmfilm, in fact i think its better. thats enough for me.

LD aso shrunk to become VCD, then w the same size CD, they manage to squeeze in more info. a movie instead of 2 vcd becomes 1 DVD and w options of subtitles...sound system configuration and clearer picture!!!

conclusion, yes will still buy into non-digital lens if i need them or want them.but then given if there is a 135DC/2.8 and a 135DC/2.8 DX. will get the dx due to size and believe will be cheaper too. why bring out a extra glass that the camera wont be able to utilise.

 

[forcefilm]

Yes, becuase I'm still using film :thumbsup:

If I ever switchto digiital, it'll be a full-frame body.

I agree with one of the other replys that the push for "digital" lenses is mostly a marketing ploy to take advantage of the large (growing) number of entry level digital SLR users. :nono:

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Digital lens are those EF-S lens from Canon, DX lens from Nikon, DC lens from Sigma, and DI lens from Tamron. They are build mainly for AP-S sensor.
Theoretically these sensors need straight lights from the lens to hit directly onto the sensor in order to get the best image quality. With the normal film lens, which is cater for 35mm film size, light falls onto the sensor is at an angle along the sides and corners, hence images are not so kind of ‘great’.

AFAIK from reading magazines like Pop Photo, the above is somewhat true, as theoritically that's the case. But also from these mags and subsequent readings, all the advises given were if you are buying new lenses by all means buy "digital" lenses, but in the meantime, the "analogue" lenses have not been shown to be any less suitable for digital. And by "digital" they do not mean DX, EF-S or DC, Di, etc, they mean lenses designed with digital application in mind, not reduced image circle.

And many pros are reporting the reverse - the analogue lenses are actually superior to the APS sensor size lenses, and more surprisingly "amateur" analogue lenses (like the Nikkor AFD18-35) are producing professional results (see Thom Hogan's webpage). Reasons given - the large image circle means you are using the centre of the image circle only, hence sharper results, and virtually no light fall-off. What you've reported "light falls onto the sensor is at an angle along the sides and corners, hence images are not so kind of ‘great’" does not really apply, or rather does not really matter as we are using the centre part of the image circle.

As to why APS digital lenses are inferior (actually not inferior but back to square one) - the lenses have reduced image circle, and hence the usual problem of corner not being very sharp, light fall off (vignetting), are back to "normal" (as in FF lenses for FF camera)(i.e. back to where we've started), despite the "straight on the sensor" design.

My personal experience with "analogue" lenses is that there is no discernable difference, and had actually not seen light fall off for a long time before I bought my first DC lens.

So the conventional wisdom to lot of us is that the "digital" lenses are really a marketing gimmick, to try to get guys like us who have "legacy" lenses to ditch old lenses and buy new ones.

Don't get me wrong, I am not slamming digital lenses, but trying to reason from first principles, what has been reported, and from my personal experiences of using both digital and analogue lenses. For the records, I have DX18-70, DX18-55, Sigma 10-20DC, as well as a whole range of older lenses like AFD70-300ED, AF50.

In the other way, these digital lens are not meant for full frame size sensor. Back of lens are much nearer to the sensor and it will hit by the mirror in a film or full frame digital body. Another problem is they produces smaller images so vignetting will occurs in bigger sensor.

Think the comment "Back of lens are much nearer to the sensor and it will hit by the mirror in a film or full frame digital body" applies to the 4/3 system.

Finally, I believe all the designers of major lens companies are already on this digital lens bandwagon. My guess is that the next iteration of lens design all lenses will be "digital" lenses, e.g. it is rumoured that Nikkor AFD50/1.8 will become AFS50/1.8 and it would probably be "digital". This is likely as I guess the major companies will develop FF DSLR in the future.

My rather long 2c.

 

[Deadpoet]

Please enlight me what is a digital lens. Still no answer. TS, please do tell.

 

[arpinkor]

Digital lens are those EF-S lens from Canon, DX lens from Nikon, DC lens from Sigma, and DI lens from Tamron. They are build mainly for AP-S sensor.
Theoretically these sensors need straight lights from the lens to hit directly onto the sensor in order to get the best image quality. With the normal film lens, which is cater for 35mm film size, light falls onto the sensor is at an angle along the sides and corners, hence images are not so kind of ‘great’.

And many pros are reporting the reverse - the analogue lenses are actually superior to the APS sensor size lenses, and more surprisingly "amateur" analogue lenses (like the Nikkor AFD18-35) are producing professional results (see Thom Hogan's webpage). Reasons given - the large image circle means you are using the centre of the image circle only, hence sharper results, and virtually no light fall-off. What you've reported "light falls onto the sensor is at an angle along the sides and corners, hence images are not so kind of ‘great’" does not really apply, or rather does not really matter as we are using the centre part of the image circle.

Regarding this part, I tend to agree more with jesser. There is a difference between 35mm film and digital FF, ie. the film plane is flat (practically anyway), but the digital sensor is not flat, the photosites are more like little tunnels, so they prefer to have light strike straight at them and not at an angle. This is in theory of course, I don't have a FF digital camera to tell how visible this effect is in real life.

 

[arpinkor]

Back of lens are much nearer to the sensor and it will hit by the mirror in a film or full frame digital body.

These type of lenses you are talking about only apply to those like Canon EF-S.

hit mirror? then won't it hit the mirror of the dslr too?

The mirror of APS-C sized-sensor DSLRs is smaller than FF (D)SLR so it won't hit the EF-S lens.