FX body + Film lens=20% less image quality?

<p>Long time lurker, new poster.</p>

<p>Been researching Nikon camera body’s and lenses diligently for 6 months; I’m interested in getting the D700. I’m also ready to drop 1500 on a pro lens.</p>

<p>Yesterday I stopped by Mikes Camera and asked if I could handle the D700 and feel how a few lenses felt on the camera. I new they wouldn’t have one but I still asked if they had a 17-35 and the guy asked me why in the world would I want to put a film lens on a digital body. I was surprised by his gusto. He basically made me feel like a caveman living in the dark ages. After more ranting, he said something about losing at least 20% image quality when you use a film lens opposed to a digitally calibrated lens. He said the only digitally calibrated fx lens are the 12-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 70-300, and the new 50mm 1.4. I tried to challenge him by asking why photozone reviews all lenses with a D200. He blew me off. He spoke at length about how light travels through a digitally calibrated lens to the sensor opposed to a film lens to film. He also spoke about losing dynamic range. He whipped out a book and showed me pictures of light moving through the lens. All this seemed to make sense.</p>

<p>Lastly, he said that Nikon likes the lack of information on this topic because people keep buying the film lenses for their digital cameras.</p>

<p>Is this true? Is there such a huge difference in image quality?</p>

<p>Are these the only digitally calibrated lenses?</p>

<p>Other threads out there that speak to this topic?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>After more ranting, he said something about losing at least 20% image quality when you use a film lens opposed to a digitally calibrated lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>He is a fool. But really it depends on the specific older lens. I have a 105mm f/4 AI-S Micro-Nikkor and a 50mm f/1.8 AI_s which are a terrific on a D700/D3/D3X , but not so the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>He said the only digitally calibrated fx lens are the 12-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 70-300, and the new 50mm 1.4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leaving out several other recent lenses. My initial diagnosis is confirmed.</p>

<p>I just bought the D700 and I am more than happy with it... except when I use it on a few of my film lenses - I have an amazing Nikon 15mm f3.5 AIS lens that offers absolutely no distortion but I just can't get the resolution and sharpness I'm looking for on digital. I'm going out this week to buy the outrageously expensive 14-24mm 2.8 you spoke of above. although I have had good luck with the 50mm 1.8 and 20mm 2.8. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks...</p>

<p>That camera store is giving you complete nonsense. There is no such distinction as film vs. digital lenses. The 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S was actually introduced at the same time as the original D1 back in 1999 for people to overcome the so called "crop factor." In fact, initially, you had to buy a D1 to be eligible to buy a 17-35mm/f2.8. Of course, after the supply caught up, one could buy the 17-35 by itself.

 

I used the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S on my D700 frequently and I actually prefer it over the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, which is more a specialized lens for super wide situations although it is also excellent.<br /><br />My guess is that the store is trying to sell you more items such as additional lenses you don't necessarily need. I suggest you take your business elsewhere.</p>

<p>A lens is a lens. Either it's sharp at a focal plane or it's not. The newer lenses have new glass that reduces chromatic aberrations and new coatings that reduce flare, but other than that they bend light the same way they did when lenses were first invented.</p>

<p><em>"It's better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than it is to open your mouth and prove it beyond all doubt."</em></p>

<p>Guess which of the above applies to your salesman at Mike's Camera. ;-)</p>

<p>Go somewhere else for technical advice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He spoke at length about how light travels through a digitally calibrated lens to the sensor opposed to a film lens to film. He also spoke about losing dynamic range. He whipped out a book and showed me pictures of light moving through the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Better known as the "baffle 'em with bullshit" sales technique. ROTFLMAO!</p>

<p>Does his store sell "digital" tripods? Specially designed to keep all those binary 1's and 0's from getting shaken up at slow shutter speeds. ;-)</p>

<p>"...the guy asked me why in the world would I want to put a film lens on a digital body...I was surprised by his gusto... made me feel like a caveman...After more ranting...He blew me off..." Wow! What sales skills! And I bet you were being kind, both in your response to him and with your comments here.</p>

<p>Kane, your experience and treatment is standard operating procedure for many of Mike's unskilled, rude and ill-informed sales staff. I speak for several friends who have endured similar treatment and refuse to buy little more than batteries or lens paper from them. Their sales staff is amongst the worst I have experienced in retail; belittling and condescending boors. That someone would say you lose 20% image quality with a 17-35/2.8 or makes that blanket statement about 'film lenses' (whatever that means) is entirely absurd. Mike's modus operandi: if logic fails, puff-up the chest, rant and brow-beat into submission. You can get far better prices and treatment from professionals. Take your hard-earned dollars and valuable business elsewhere, namely B&H in New York.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He spoke at length about how light travels through a digitally calibrated lens to the sensor opposed to a film lens to film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would have loved to listen to that - must have been quite some mumbo jumbo. Aside from nano-coating on newer lenses and - as I read somewhere - the desire not to have an image element at the rear of the lens that puts a large kink into the light path - I wouldn't know of any differences in the optical path of a "film" lens as opposed to a "digitally calibrated one" (whatever that actually might be). Maybe some enlightening information will surface in this thread.</p>

<p>I just took about 160 shots today using the 50mm 1.8D AF (released in the film era) on digital and they came out great. That's the reason everybody got so excited about Nikon and Canon mount digital cameras in the first place. The camera store guy is incorrect.</p>

<p>Michael, yeah, I have read about "digital tripods" before. Pretty soon you'll need digital lens caps, digital camera bags ....</p>

<p>make that 22%</p>

Kane, I hope you never go back there.

<p>Well, I certainly have the answer I was looking for. Thanks for the excellent feedback. I think I'll refocus on the 17-35. And No, I would never actually buy a camera at Mike's, it's just a nice place to hold a camera. Maybe its my turn to upset the salesman, I'll keep going back to hold the camera. </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure none of the Nikon user guides list these lenses as incompatible , due to 20% sharpness loss.</p>

<blockquote><strong>"Kane, I hope you never go back there"</strong> if the price is right, why not. The point is, just be informed from beforehand and know exactly what you want to buy.</blockquote>

<p>Wow...it's guys like that that give us camera salesmen a bad name. Often times when a "digital" customer comes into my Ritz to upgrade from their kit lens but is floored by the prices of nicer glass, I take out a business card and I don't write my name on it....I write KEH and a list of older but wonderful film lenses both AF and MF for them to try for bargain prices. I still love Nikon's new glass but I work to help make photography more accesible to every man and woman that walks into my store...I don't work to empty their wallets.</p>

<p>By the way...I do that mainly when the customer is already having trouble affording their camera purchase or is a starving student like myself =). For those who come in with the money and determination to buy the newest and best....I take pleasure in setting them up with the newest and best glass Nikon has to offer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That camera store is giving you complete nonsense. There is no such distinction as film vs. digital lenses. The 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S was actually introduced at the same time as the original D1 back in 1999 for people to overcome the so called "crop factor." In fact, initially, you had to buy a D1 to be eligible to buy a 17-35mm/f2.8. Of course, after the supply caught up, one could buy the 17-35 by itself. I used the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S on my D700 frequently and I actually prefer it over the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, which is more a specialized lens for super wide situations although it is also excellent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, I have both as well and I love the 17-35 on the D3/D700. Yes, the 14-24 at 17mm is better than the 17-35 at the 17 end, but that is about it really. I also love the 16 2.8D, 28 F/2 AIS, 35 F/2 Carl Zeiss, 50 F/1.2 AIS, 60 F/2.8 D macro, 85 F/1.4 Carl Zeiss and the 105 F/2.5 AIS...the 105 is stunning on the D3/D700.<br /> Your camera salesman is totally full of it.</p>

<p>Nikon 17-35mm at 17mm, F 6.3 on D700, jpeg fine setting.</p><div></div>

<p>The right corner is out of focus due to how close the person was, but the left corner is sharp..</p><div></div>

<p>Actually, there <em>are</em> differences between the way film and a digital sensor react to light. Among them their abilities to record light rays coming in at a slant. The digital sensor, as far as I understand, 'prefers' the light coming in straight on, whereas on film that is of less concern. The reason should be that the photo-sites shadow each other when film enters them at a steep angle. Therefore, if one lens is so collimated as to emit a bunch of parallell rays towards the sensor, that would be preferable for a digital sensor. I'm no optics scientist at all, but I did notice a big difference in how my old 500/4 vignetted considerably on a D3 but never so on an F5. Same with the 70-200/2.8 which was indeed introduced in the digital era, but when there were only DX sensors around, which obviously don't suffer much from vignetting due to their smaller size. I do think they take particular precautions these days when designing lenses for digital cameras that they didn't have to in the film days. But that is not to say that all the old lenses are useless! Far from it.</p>

<p>On another note: If you're being patronised in a camera store it makes perfect sense not to buy there. But I dislike the practice of many to check gear out in a 'real' camera store and then buy it cheaper on the Internet. That way there won't be many 'real' stores around in the future. I am a regular customer at the nearest decent camera store (which sadly happens to be 170 miles away), and while buying there is marginally more expensive than on the 'net, the service they provide is worth a lot. If something brakes, I may borrow a replacement during service; if there's something new out, I may test it over the weekend. I'd like to see the Internet store that offers that to their regular customers..</p>

<p>Typically camera store salesmen aren't very knowledgeable about these things. It is true that <em>some</em> lenses designed with film in mind do not perform well on digital, but on the other hand many of them perform better in specific areas than more recent ones that were designed for digital - there are good ones and not so great ones, you just have to find out which is which... </p>

<p>I think it's safe to buy any Nikkor of 50mm and longer focal length that is good on film - it'll work just fine on digital, either FX or DX. For wide angles, some old lenses perform well and others do not. For example, I was very unhappy with my 20mm AF-D on the D200. I've since moved to manual focus wide angle primes and am very happy. The 14-24/2.8 et al. seem very large and clumsy to me - this is not where I want to go. I do have the 24-70 and it is a very nice lens, but there are several "not digitally optimized" lenses which outperform it in specific areas of performance. For example, the 50mm f/1.8D. Also, the 24-70 has got to be the largest 24mm lens the world has ever seen. This is entirely unnecessary IMO. You can get the performance in a smaller package if you're willing to find the right lens.</p>

<p>For example, the 24/2.8 AIS is but a fraction of the size of the 24-70, yet with image quality that matches the bigger zoom lens on D3/D3X. Admittedly it does not zoom, but that feature isn't always as mandatory as advertisements would like us to believe.</p>

<p>Many wide angle lenses from the film days, however, do <strong>not</strong> perform as well on DSLRs as they did with film. 28mm lenses and up should be OK, though. The very longest telephoto lenses (400 mm and longer) may also show issues if they hail from the film generation. So the salesman did have a valid point, but it is a tiny tiny point indeed.</p>

<p>Daniel I can see that your lens is not a "digitally calibrated fx lens" . Just joking I hope you don't mind :-P</p>

<p>Look at all the white spots produced by the analog photons on the digital sensor!</p>

<p>ROFL: "digitally calibrated fx lens" that is a good one - made my day.<br>

Kane you were right to be suspicious :-)</p>