Practical differences in resolution...

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>But, if the lenses behave the same way at the same print size basically regardless of the megapixels then it isn't a big deal. As long as the greater megapixel count doesn't exacerbate the issues to where I would have to print smaller.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you'll never have to print smaller. More megapixels and more resolution on the sensor means that you get a better picture of what the lens puts out. So the same size print will always be as good or better with a higher megapixel count, regardless of the lens.</p>

<p>This goes as long as you don't change sensor size. </p>

[rconey]

<p>I don't think you need to shy away from older lenses, even on the newer hi res bodies. You can find a lot of the old manual focus lenses used, in good condition and can get great images with them if you are careful. A few years ago I got three copies of the 105 to play with, an AI version with the longest focus throw and a clip on lens shade, an AIS version, and the 105 AIS 1.8 version. After trying them all on tripod several times I kept the oldest, AI version as "best" on my D800. I have a 28 f2 and a 35 f1.4 MF I kept. They aren't best wide open, but if focused with Live View stopped down a little they are quite sharp, with pleasant rendering. I wouldn't use them if I was trying to shoot quickly, but they are a lot of fun in their place. I have the 75 - 150 f3.5 MF series E that someone mentioned above and really like it, although I don't use it a lot. It has its own personality that can be used to good purpose in a deliberate way.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Ah, the beauty of shooting RAW and processing with software that offers lens specific corrections is that for the most part, these 'flaws' are corrected/eliminated even on high megapixel bodies!</p>

[wayne_f1]

<p>Digital cameras have anti-aliasing filters on them. Aliasing is a problem creating artifacts (false data, like moire, etc) due to insufficient sampling resolution. AA filters slightly blur away the highest lens image resolution that would cause aliasing problems (moire, etc). Then the camera sensor resolution can deal with the detail remaining, without causing aliasing problems.<br /> <br />If your camera has an AA filter, then you are in no danger of the sensor exceeding what lenses can do. The AA filter is there for a purpose (of insufficient resolution).<br /> And even if it did exceed, sampling resolution too high is never a problem. Resolution is a good thing.</p>

<p>If your camera (with at least 24 megapixels) has removed the AA filter, then congratulations, the camera has finally hit the absolute Minimum resolution to not need it (in most situations ... some situations of excess detail can still be a problem.)</p>

<p>But there is a minimum resolution ... the absolute minimum required of digital sampling, which is a relatively crude level, and more resolution than the Nyquist 2x minimum (more than 2x is called over sampling) is a better image, better than the crudest image. We are not there yet however. Relax, and enjoy your megapixels. :) A sample of the concept of oversampling improvements is shown at http://www.scantips.com/lights/reslimit.html</p>

[studio460]

<p>Jason said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>. . . I have been really interested in that 105/2.5 ais.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would recommend instead the Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais. Since it's a whole stop faster, you have some margin available to stop-down to say, f/2.8, for improved optical performance.<br>

<br>

<img src="http://studio460.com/images/nikkor105-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais + Metabones E-mount adapter.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ha! I just realized I posted another picture of my 105mm Ais in your other thread as well (I guess it's hard to contain my excitement about using this gorgeous lens on my new digital cinema rig!). If you're also interested in filmmaking someday, the Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais makes a great medium-telephoto for cine applications. Its oil-dampened focus ring feels silky smooth on a good follow-focus. Also, at a 157.5mm-equivalent on a DX/Super35/APS-C frame, it makes a great headshot lens.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Back on-topic, I think the idea of using a high-resolution imager with lower-fidelity glass is interesting. Pixel-perfect imagery isn't always necessarily the primary goal, and in fact, I've been searching for more flawed glass to add to my collection of "bad" Nikon lenses:</p>

<p>• Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 (pre-Ai, pre-1977 version)<br /> • AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D</p>

<p>I'm actually most anticipating their potential use in cinematography. Since HDTV (currently) is only a 2K-format, these lenses' lack of sharpness isn't really an issue. It's their propensity for creating interesting lens flare that's cool.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Ralph - I've found that having a few crazy lenses in the kit can be very useful, I've used D800 + Lensbaby Plastic Optic wide open on quite a few occasions, you can"t get much lower fidelity "glass" than that! all the same it is a handy, pretty trippy, creative tool, though I tend to use the Double Optic and Edge 80 far more.</p>

<p>I got interested in this after seeing the effects of a lens called "The Dreamagon" with Nikon mount, Petzvals, and lurking in my memory, is a set of Fun lenses, I think made by Nikon but could have been a third party maker</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>This discussion takes me back to the "softening" filters introduced in 1980. Oh, how the world turns.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Ah! the memories of Vaseline on lens filters</p>