Film era lenses vs the modern ones.

"Film-era" lenses often don't perform well on digital sensors, even if they perform well on film. Most digital capture is much more sensitive than film is to chromatic aberration. This can cause lack of sharpness, especially in the corners, that wouldn't be particularly bothersome in a film capture.

 

The reason? Film is sensitive to all three capture colours throughout its area. In other words, a given spot of film can capture all colours in a vertical stack. Most digital sensors have the three different colour-sensitive pixels adjacent to one another, not stacked. It works very well for most purposes, but it magnifies chromatic aberration. (I understand there are a few sensors that are designed differently and aren't sensitive to this, but they are relatively uncommon.)

 

You can see the consequences of this in the rise of ED/LD glass in what were, in the film days, relatively simply designs. You can even find ED glass in 50mm full-frame lenses. And to be sure, this has some benefits for film photographers - the aberrations were there when shooting film, too; the effect was just smaller.

 

There was an interesting thread on Photrio recently about the opposite effect. Digital is, in effect, much less subject to issues from distortion than film is. It can be corrected in post-production in digital photography, but in straight film photography (without a hybrid workflow), there is no way to remove distortion. Some systems are now seeing very sharp, low-chromatic-aberration lenses where distortion is sacrificed to keep prices, size and construction reasonable, because on digital, it's not a problem. These lenses may not perform terribly well on film, though.

I would like to be able to converse with c_watson when in time his digital machine is defunct and is an expensive paperweight while my LEICA M-3 film camera is still functional and using roll upon roll of film. Please c_watson reply to me when the inevitable occurs.

 

I worry that sooner or later all our precious film cameras (and yes, digital camera too) will become useless, either from the end of film production, a lack of competent repair or the impossibility of fixing electronics. Already I can no longer repair my superb Contax point and shoot, and I would like to buy one of the great Fuji film cameras but can't see to investing in one one that has no repair support.

I worry that sooner or later all our precious film cameras (and yes, digital camera too) will become useless, either from the end of film production, a lack of competent repair or the impossibility of fixing electronics. Already I can no longer repair my superb Contax point and shoot, and I would like to buy one of the great Fuji film cameras but can't see to investing in one one that has no repair support.

 

One strategy is to buy good condition used cameras or discounted trailing edge models recently replaced by newer gear. Shoot 'em till they break.

 

Respectfully, cameras aren't investments since few if any appreciate in value or pay any sort of monetary return or supply a store of value. Just enjoy the image they produce.

"Film-era" lenses often don't perform well on digital sensors, even if they perform well on film. Most digital capture is much more sensitive than film is to chromatic aberration. This can cause lack of sharpness, especially in the corners, that wouldn't be particularly bothersome in a film capture.

 

The reason? Film is sensitive to all three capture colours throughout its area. In other words, a given spot of film can capture all colours in a vertical stack. Most digital sensors have the three different colour-sensitive pixels adjacent to one another, not stacked. It works very well for most purposes, but it magnifies chromatic aberration. (I understand there are a few sensors that are designed differently and aren't sensitive to this, but they are relatively uncommon.)

 

yes, and so it has to do with the "eye" not the lens itself. Film emulsions and electronic sensors work differently..

I ditched all my DSLR gear but a Canon 5D like three years ago and decided to only shoot film, yet was unsure how well it would go. But in fact I no longer feel a need for digital. On 120 roll, the old Nikkor lenses and couple germans and russians are razor sharp wide open, to the point that the level of zoom required to get into contour blur makes no practical sense. This summer I played with couple wide-angle lenses on 35mm SLR and same result: I don't see the point for digital. Some low ISO BW emulsions like Adox 20 are insanely high definition.

 

for sharpness optical elements qualities and designs can't be made better past certain point and this point was certainly reached quite some time ago in the industrial age long before digital.

for colour, coating is important, some old lenses were designed with BW in mind. Otherwise current lenses are just about the micro-mechanics and electronics around the autofocus and camera software.

One strategy is to buy good condition used cameras or discounted trailing edge models recently replaced by newer gear. Shoot 'em till they break.

 

Respectfully, cameras aren't investments since few if any appreciate in value or pay any sort of monetary return or supply a store of value. Just enjoy the image they produce.

 

 

Yes, cameras are not investments. Indeed, I'm starting to think they are disposable.

Yes, cameras are not investments. Indeed, I'm starting to think they are disposable.

Cameras are disposable.

 

Lenses should last a lifetime or more.

Cameras are disposable...

 

My Nikon FILM cameras are as old as 42 years :)

One strategy is to buy good condition used cameras or discounted trailing edge models recently replaced by newer gear. Shoot 'em till they break.

 

Respectfully, cameras aren't investments since few if any appreciate in value or pay any sort of monetary return or supply a store of value. Just enjoy the image they produce.

A few do appreciate for example my 1955 LEICA M-3 with 50 mm 2.8 ELMAR purchased in 1968 for $145.00.

Cameras are disposable.

 

Lenses should last a lifetime or more.

Not necessarily ones with leaf shutters or electronics such as VR.

Not necessarily ones with leaf shutters or electronics such as VR.

I said should...

And I fully agree, modern, electronic lenses are unlikely to outlast their respective systems.

 

But you'll almost certainly be able to use a 1930s screw mount lens on something a hundred years from now.

Eventually fungus, air pollution, losses due to floods and fires and maybe neglect, will consume everything but a few museum pieces.

A few do appreciate for example my 1955 LEICA M-3 with 50 mm 2.8 ELMAR purchased in 1968 for $145.00.

You'll only know when a buyer bites!

Value is subjective, I have far more trivial items than my Dad's M3 kit that are beyond price.

Lenses should last a lifetime or more.

Further to this:

I know to my cost that Sigma and some consumer grade Canon lenses used low-dispersion plastic elements in some of their designs. Unfortunately, the plastic they used has a tendency to develop surface micro-cracking over time - resulting in misty or clouded elements that ruin the contrast of the lens. Result? Disposable lenses.

 

There are also a (thankfully) few lenses using Thorium glass that develop into gamma emitters. Not only becoming hazardous to use, but also self-destructing the lens through yellowing of the glass and peeling the AR coating away.

 

So, if you're a cat or dog, then maybe one of those lenses would last you a lifetime.

Thoriated glass is radioactive from the beginning. Hazardous if you keep it on or near your body permanently.

The browning can be reversed by exposing the glass to light.

Thoriated glass is radioactive from the beginning. Hazardous if you keep it on or near your body permanently.

The browning can be reversed by exposing the glass to light.

Utraviolet light. Plain ordinary white light won't do.

for sharpness optical elements qualities and designs can't be made better past certain point and this point was certainly reached quite some time ago in the industrial age long before digital.

for colour, coating is important, some old lenses were designed with BW in mind. Otherwise current lenses are just about the micro-mechanics and electronics around the autofocus and camera software

In 1899, Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the US Patent Office, declared there was nothing new to invent. He was wrong, and so is @antioniobravo.

 

Mechanics and electronics have little to do with lens quality.

 

Before 1980, lenses were designed with ray-tracing calculations performed by teams of mathematicians with desk calculators. Few of the best lenses had more than 8 elements and many had 5 or less. There were fewer choices of glass at the time, and coatings were much less efficient. More elements resulted in better correction and resolution, but less contrast.

 

Now, multi-layer coatings are over 99% efficient, which means more elements can be employed with acceptable loss of contrast. Mirrorless cameras require less back focus distance, so less design effort is expended to compensate for mirror clearance. With modern ray-tracing software, the designer can quickly verify the performance of various lens designs, and modify the design to meet certain performance specifications. There's still a bit of art and science involved. Other factors include size, weight and cost, and the ability to accommodate normal manufacturing tolerances. The last is often secondary in the design of high-end video lenses, which are hand assembled and tuned. Bargains in this category start at about $5000 for prime lenses and $10K or more for zooms.

Natural thorium has an extremely long half life, and decays primarily by alpha emission. Alpha particles are most dangerous if ingested, because they tend to settle in the growing ends of bone (calcium analogues) and other organs. Otherwise, alpha particles cannot penetrate the skin, and are stopped even by a sheet of paper. Thorium glass is no longer used because (a) it yellows the glass with age, and (b) it must be disposed as hazardous waste to keep it from entering ground water.

 

Every element with an atomic number greater than bismuth (83) is subject to radioactive decay. This includes lanthanum, which is still used in glass, along with other transition elements.

 

If there are any conclusions beyond economics, don't eat lenses, and don't carry them in your pockets if you are younger than 50.

 

Exposure to sunlight for a week or two will remove the yellowing. Sunlight is white by convention, but has ample UV to do the job.

Mechanics and electronics have little to do with lens quality.

 

Mechanics, I would argue, do have a fair bit to do with quality at least up to a point because correct and consistent positioning of the lens elements is essentially step 0 in designing a high performance lens.

 

Also, more advanced systems of floating elements for zooming and focusing both can, in theory, produce better or at least more consistent performance. That's also subject to using the correct materials, as if, for example, a cam wears to the point that it no longer consistently places the elements, or consistently moves them to the wrong position, the consequences are obvious. Even a poorly manufactured one, if new, can perform badly or inconsistently out of the box.

 

I don't think optical innovation is done, but I do think that now we are likely at the point of diminishing returns. I don't see great advances coming of the sort that have changed things in the past, like lens coatings, low dispersion glass, or computerized lens designs, but have no doubt that things will continue to improve, and hopefully in lighter packages(some standard zooms and even primes have become pigs even though they're much better than older equivalents).

Modern prime lenses for mirrorless cameras have 15 or more elements, for optimum performance with high-resolution sensors. Zeiss, in particular, design lenses for consistent rendering between focal lengths in a particular model line (e.g., Loxia, Batis, Otus), and uniform sharpness across the FOV, rather than ultimate sharpness in the center. Zeiss mirrorless lenses tend to have high color contrast, which is striking when compared to legacy Leica lenses and most Nikon lenses for DSLRs.

You'll only know when a buyer bites!

WRONG!!!!! Educate yourself. Check photo dealers and auction sites and you will find the prices to be $1,000 or more depending upon condition. Given that the original M-3 cost under $300 I would venture to guess that intention notwithstanding LEICA cameras have proven to be investments.

WRT Thorium glass being only an alpha emitter:

True it starts out that way, but the daughter decay products of Thorium are gamma emitters, and if you pick up one of those, invariably > 50 year old, lenses, you'll find that its radioactivity will now pass right through a lead brick to give several hundred counts/second on a Geiger detector!

 

Personally, I wouldn't care to spend too much time in the same room with one. Let alone carry it in my pocket.

WRT Thorium glass being only an alpha emitter:

True it starts out that way, but the daughter decay products of Thorium are gamma emitters, and if you pick up one of those, invariably > 50 year old, lenses, you'll find that its radioactivity will now pass right through a lead brick to give several hundred counts/second on a Geiger detector!

 

Personally, I wouldn't care to spend too much time in the same room with one. Let alone carry it in my pocket.

Thorium 230 has a half life of 77000 years & Thorium 232 has an even longer half life (14,000,000,000 years), there's not much difference in the composition after only 50 years. Immediate daughter decay products also have long half lives (Radium 226 is 1620yrs giving of alpha & gamma, Radium 228 is 5.8 years emitting beta)

 

Lenses with high activity through lead bricks have almost certainly been contaminated by other radioactive material since being made, that sort of signal would not occur from pure Thorium after only 50 years (which is less than 1/1500 of a half life, even for the less stable form). In this time less than 0.05% of the initial thorium has decayed.

 

If such a lens exists chances are someone has decreed 'the lens is radioactive so it must be stored with other radioactive material'. In the sort of location this could happen the radioactive material it's stored with could be MUCH more radioactive than the lens itself.

 

Surface contamination is the main reason I'm involved in radioactivity (site deputy radiological protection supervisor), Ash & sludge on site concentrating up trace NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) to the point it falls within legislation. Radioactive lenses are more active than our NORM, but they don't spread nearly as easily.

 

I'd be happy to spend the rest on my life with a typical radioactive Takumar in my bedroom (except when I take it out to use).

Lenses with high activity through lead bricks have almost certainly been contaminated by other radioactive material since being made,

That wasn't the opinion of our radiation protection officer, who tested two separate lenses at my request, and whose calibrated radiation meter was used.

 

He consulted a chart of radioactive isotopes, upon which were clearly shown Thorium decay products with gamma-emitting properties. And I doubt that random post-production contamination would have equally affected both a 7" f/2.9 Aero Ektar, and a 12" f/9 Cooke Apotal process lens in exactly the same way. Neither of which had been specially stored, and certainly not with other radioactive products.

 

Moderately strong gamma emitters aren't the sort of stuff that just gets picked up casually.

Edited October 22, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

I still shoot 8x10 and 4x5 and 120 with Rolleiflex and Pentax 67. I still make prints, mostly platinum but some silver. Everything and every opinion expressed in this thread is a moot point. Barking up the wrong tree, pissing in the wind. All the technical stuff you are talking about is just nerdy head up your ass kind of thing. Everything done that is of value is primarily done with your mind. If you think that using a lens that gives you this amount of lines per mm versus what that lens gives you then you are a hopelessly head up your ass nerd. Study art, not lens designs. Find a camera that feels good in your hands. Make prints... not just digital files or contact sheets. Finish your work.