| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| LensesOld Glass vs. New | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by novicius: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 18:26 | 1st Post |
| Just been reading some old threads , where it´s been mentioned that by having old glass , it´s no use of investing in high resolution camera´s ,....hmm.... odd that , in the good ol´ days when ammo was supplied by Ilford/Kodak/Agfa etc, no photog would say that his lenses were not good enough t´ be used with Kodachrome 25 , ( the highest -resolution -wise color slide film in the world ) on the contrary , Ye want it t´be sharp as possible..?.. get kc25 !.. no matter what lens Ye have . Actually , I find that my old lenses produce much Better results on my D1 - D1x - slrN , than with film , some even much better , like the 55 f1.2 , always a bit of a dud with film , on the aforementioned camera`s especially the slrN (FF ) , I love t` shoot wide-open , the only gripe is that there`s no metercoupling , as the great yellow father in Rochester in his wisdom omitted the meter lever ( grumble ) but that`s where Gossen steps in , as it is , All of my Ol` glass perform Well , certainly compared with the 20-35 f2.8 afd / 35-70 2.8 afd which can be considered fine examples of lensmaking , and even the 43-86 f3.5 ( I think from first serie ) which is considered by many t`be the worst lens ever made , and the 28-45 f4.5 ( the first true wide-angle zoom ) is a lens that was very particular to film choice , it would draw a cold harsh image with some films as would the 55f1.2 , all perform Fine with the digital stuff , now , the really great lenses like PC Nikkors 28mm f3.5 / 35mm f2.8 turn out astounding results , tecnically speaking that is , it`s a win-win situation really . Actually I was considering all that before I purchased the slrN ( unlike others I stubbornly held out until an affordable FF camera came about , for I refused to give up on the wide-angles ) , for I realised when studying the digital world , that the biggest difference between old & new , is the Developing , before it was Durst laborator , Agfa / Kodachrome/ FP4 / tri-X , Cibachrome , ID 11 , D76 etc. mixing chemicals , hiding under a green light , peering through a loupe , lot of work ( yet seeing an image appear in front of my very eyes is something I do miss at times ) yet there was n`t much manipulation , other than some precision , like keeping temperatures steady , and tilting the enlarging easel to correct for converging lines , and that was about it .. compare that to PS - LR - Photodesk ,..yes , even that simple Photoscape offers possibillities undreamed of in the good ol` days , the in-camera chips corrects many lensflaws , on the slrN it`s even user selectable. There are many reasons why Ol` glass can/will perform better on the latest/newest of camera`s, When that D3X comes into my price range , all my Ol`glass will be projecting images onto its sensor  I joined digital shooting only a few yrs. ago , I firmly believed that quality could only be done with film , boy , have I been put to shame .
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by richw: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 07:08 | 2nd Post |
| It'll depend somewhat on the conditions you shoot in. I have a 50mm f1.8 AF-D. Inside, at night, or other low light conditions and it's wonderful, but on my D3s outside it has a horrible hot spot even in overcast weather. A lot of modern lenses have been 'Optimised' for digital, and this does make a difference. But thats of course not to say that the old lenses are not of use.
|
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 08:40 | 3rd Post |
| Vic, you raise several points. Digital has now surpassed film, at least in the SLR range. I don't think many will take issue with that. However, In order to benefit from the very highest resolution sensors, modern glass IS needed. The ultra high resolving power of the modern top end lenses which have been designed for digital are needed to get the full benefit from the modern high resolution sensors. Rich mentions optimised for digital; the biggest optical difference between film and sensor is that the sensor usually has two thin sheets of glass in front of the sensor, the Low-Pass filter and a clear protective glass which is bonded to the sensor body which seals and protects the actual sensor photocells. Those two sheets of glass have an effect on the light passing from the rear element of your lens to the sensor photocells. Modern (optimised) lenses are designed to work with these extra layers of glass in front of the sensor, they do affect the light path, if only slightly. With DX bodies and old, therefore full frame 35mm film lenses the sensor is only recording the centre 'sweet spot' of the image circle. Most lenses perform well in the centre DX area. As for the exposure issues using non coupled, non chipped lenses, the histogram is your best friend here, I guess a manual exposure, make a test exposure and look at the histogram. I adjust the exposure untii the image data is just reaching the right hand (white) side. That should give you your best exposure.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 09:57 | 4th Post |
| As Robert has said the old lenses no matter how good are not up to the high megapixel sensors in todays cameras. The Nikon D1X that I still have sitting on my shelf produces very nice images but the D800 out resolves it. When you look at the results from D800 with new glass v. old glass it becomes obvious especially towards the edges/corners.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by novicius: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 11:31 | 5th Post |
richw wrote: It'll depend somewhat on the conditions you shoot in. I have a 50mm f1.8 AF-D. Inside, at night, or other low light conditions and it's wonderful, but on my D3s outside it has a horrible hot spot even in overcast weather.Odd tho` is n`t it , does n`t AF-D mean Auto Focus Digital , that lens should be corrected for digital , has it something t` do with inter-action Lens / Camera / 5000Kelvin ..? I thought that " hot spot " would only occur with Infra Red shooting and only with some old glass , according to Bj¸rn R¸rslet , I have n`t encountered that phenomina , but I have no I R kit , thinkin´ about converting either the D1 or the D1x , have n`t decided yet ,
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by novicius: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 11:46 | 6th Post |
| Robert , Interestin Ye mentioning sensor resolution being higher than Lens resolution , I thought Glass stil being unsurpassed in that respect , reading a histogram is not my forte ( yet ), I still rely on my Gossen Lunasix - Lunasix F - or Vivitar 283 LX , each is as big as a pack of smokes , but there`s always one in the bag. I have n`t encountered any problems with my old glass , I find they perform better on the digital equipment compared to film ,especially the wide -angles , since they can be corrected for lens light fall of , corrected for barrel / pin cushion distortion so obvious with wides , I gather that new lenses should be better ,altho` I suspect that much of it is marketing hullabaloo , I`ve noticed that You yerself still employ old glass , have Ye encountered probs. like Rich has ?
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by novicius: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 11:55 | 7th Post |
jk wrote: As Robert has said the old lenses no matter how good are not up to the high megapixel sensors in todays cameras.Sure , I see that with the slrN , see that with film too , as I still catch myself leaving space around the subject ( left over from magazine shooting days ) required by editors so they could place captions , it `s not much of an issue for me , I just zoom out using my legs , but I am surprised to learn that others observed problems with their old glass.:baffled:
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 13:09 | 8th Post |
novicius wrote:I thought that " hot spot " would only occur with Infra Red shooting and only with some old glass , according to Bj¸rn R¸rslet , I have n`t encountered that phenomina , but I have no I R kit , thinkin´ about converting either the D1 or the D1x , have n`t decided yet , Hotspots can occur in normal photography in the wrong conditions for exactly the same reasons as for IR. The light reflects from the glass sensor cover/hot mirror filter onto the rear element of the lens, and back, repeatedly, if you are familiar with audio you will have heard of feedback squeal, lens hotspots might be described as an optical equivalent. There are several of us here on the forum who take IR photographs, if you do decide to have a go, I am sure we can give you some guidance.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by novicius: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 14:19 | 9th Post |
Robert wrote: novicius wrote:Ah that explains it , so then when the rear element is very close to the sensor there should be a hot spot , do not have that with the 55 f1.2 which has a rather large rear element very close to the sensor , have n`t noticed anything sofar , but then the slrN has no AA filter , which makes it susceptible to moir¨ tho`. I definitely want to get on with IR , there `s a company in the USA that offers several kits , incl. a tutorial how to install in both the D1.. D1x ,..can n`t decide which camera t` rebuild , as the D1 has that nifty shutter , the D1x has more resolution , and which filter kit , or maybe the UV kit ,.. any recommendations ?
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 15:38 | 10th Post |
| I have a D1-IR, in my opinion it's rather lacking in resolution. I have a spare D1x body, it depends how good you are with your fingers, I have opened up D1 and D1x with no difficulty. There are two companies in US who do the conversions or sell the filters. The 'standard' IR filter is 720nM, from memory. You can go as weak as 650Nm or as hard as 800nM I think, It's a while since I was checking these figures. I have a good friend, Dr. Klaus Schmitt, ( http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.co.uk ) in Germany who may be able to help you and there is also a company in the UK who fit the filters. The toughest part is getting the filter in in perfectly clean conditions, if you trap a dust bunny behind the filter you may have to pull it out, clean it and re-assemble. The D1x and D1 both have the same filter size. I would like to convert a D200, I already have a D200-UV version, I feel the D200 is a very suitable body for conversion but it's not a DIY job on the D200. Eric had a D200 converted and it took quite a bit of work to get it right. Please forgive my ignorance but what is a "slrN" ? I have seen you mention it several times but I don't recognise the term. This Rudbeckia was taken with my D1-IR and (probably) Nikkor 55mm f2.8 Micro. Attachment: Rudbeckia IR a 4829.jpg (Downloaded 18 times)
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 15:39 | 11th Post |
| This was taken with D200 and Nikkor 55mm f2.8 Micro. Attachment: Rudbeckia vis web a 3502.jpg (Downloaded 18 times)
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 15:42 | 12th Post |
| Finally a UV fluorescence image, taken with a normal camera but in pure UV light at 365nM using a special Nichia high power UV LED. The bright particles are probably pollen but some could be microfibres of manmade fabric, which fluoresce brightly in UV light. Attachment: Rudbeckia UV Fl a web 3505.jpg (Downloaded 18 times)
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 15:54 | 13th Post |
| slrN is the Kodak slrN 14MP FF camera.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 15:54 | 14th Post |
novicius wrote:Ah that explains it , so then when the rear element is very close to the sensor there should be a hot spot , do not have that with the 55 f1.2 which has a rather large rear element very close to the sensor , have n`t noticed anything sofar , but then the slrN has no AA filter , which makes it susceptible to moir¨ tho`. It's not so much the closeness, as how flat the rear element is, the Nikkor 50-1.4 has a very flat rear element, from my limited experiments that lens has about the flattest rear element I have seen and I believe that is the problem. This is another aspect of 'optimising for digital' Film doesn't reflect in the same way as the LPF.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 15:57 | 15th Post |
Robert wrote:Finally a UV fluorescence image, taken with a normal camera but in pure UV light at 365nM using a special Nichia high power UV LED. Robert please can you give more info on the UV image. Camera and conversion details Lens Any filters Light is the Nichia UV LED - i hav a similar one in a torch
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by jk: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 15:59 | 16th Post |
| Vic I'll swap you my Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF for your 50mm f1.2 Only one stop difference!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 16:49 | 17th Post |
jk wrote:Robert wrote: JK, That image above isn't a UV image taken in the UV spectrum, it's a Visible spectrum image, taken in pure UV light. You can reproduce this with almost any normal camera and your SpiderFire UV Torch, the wavelength will be a bit longer at about 385nM but it should still work OK. My UV camera is a D200 with the LPF removed and replaced with a plain fluoride glass replacement. Here is an image taken with it using a Venus UV pass filter at 365nM. Back focus adjustment is about 21mm @ ~ 500mm using my Micro Nikkor 55mm f2.8, @ f2.8. Illuminated by a 3W UV LED with a home built adjustable Fluoride condenser lens. The Micro Nikkor isn't Ideal it attenuates the UV too much. I am hoping to get an EL Nikkor about 70 or 80mm with a helix adaptor. The metal body EL lenses are best, they pass the greatest amount of UV because they are not coated. From memory you have a 105mm bellows Nikkor, that may be OK because I don't think that has coated elements... Same flower as above. Attachment: Rudbeckia UV web a 97.jpg (Downloaded 16 times)
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 17:10 | 18th Post |
| Vic, here is a composite image taken with two D1's, one normal the other IR converted @ 720nM and blended together. Bot using the same lens, but I forget which! LOL Looking at it now the border needs toning down... Attachment: Screen Shot 2013-04-22 at 22.06.36.jpg (Downloaded 15 times)
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by novicius: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 18:14 | 19th Post |
| This one... Attachment: slrn_front.jpg (Downloaded 15 times)
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by novicius: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 18:22 | 20th Post |
| Had to ask my eldest son for help , Robert , those are FANTASTIC shots  Soon I will be able t` make a decision
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 18:28 | 21st Post |
novicius wrote:This one... OK! Hallowed ground... 
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 18:35 | 22nd Post |
novicius wrote:Had to ask my eldest son for help , I know the feeling! Sometime projects have to wait for the weekend when the boys visit, I remember I have stuff but not where it is! Thank you, I enjoy the challenge, I am not really technical but I love doing this stuff, especially with flowers. I grow the Rudbeckia in the garden so I have fresh flowers to play with, when I have time... I think on balance a D1x body would be good enough, Eric used a D70 with great success, if you follow the link in his signature you should find Eric's IR image which put mine to shame.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by novicius: Mon Apr 22nd, 2013 18:36 | 23rd Post |
jk wrote: Vic I'll swap you my Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF for your 50mm f1.2J K, It`s the 55 mm 1.2 , the first of the three , mechanically not as strong as the 5o f1.2 and certainly No match for the Noct Nikkor ( drool ), mine had a few slight knocks , it " jiggles " ,so when turning the focus ring , the image moves a bit , but it still works okay , we go way back that 55 and I , am rather attached to it ( as I am to all my lenses , and I have 2 Nikkors 50 F 2.0 already , one is the version before the coupling ridge ( did I mention that I am attached to my gear ) 
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by jk: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 03:24 | 24th Post |
novicius wrote:jk wrote:Vic I'll swap you my Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF for your 50mm f1.2J K, I think it is well appreciated where it currently lives. It would be wasted with me.  The 50mm f1.2 units I have been seeing on ebay have gone for £300. Too much for a MF lens of that vintage. I can get the new 50mm f1.4 AFS for £300. This is latest design and optimised for digital use.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 03:38 | 25th Post |
jk wrote:The 50mm f1.2 units I have been seeing on ebay have gone for £300. Too much for a MF lens of that vintage. Philistine!  
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 04:08 | 26th Post |
Robert wrote:jk wrote:Well if they were £200 it would be OK but £325 is 1/3 of a new Samyang 24mm f3.5 Shift Tilt that I fancy but hasnt got to market yet. The Samyang is totally manual but it is better designed than the Nikon equivalent. So I am also looking for the Nikon 24mm PCE at the right price but they have been selling in excess of £1100. Whichever happens!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 05:36 | 27th Post |
| Good Glass ain't cheap. And if it's really specialised you need to be keen. My needs are modest... I would like a 28mm f2.8 CRC (focuses down to 200mm or 8") and a 20mm f3.5 MF, plus of course a metal EL Nikkor for UV in the range 70 to 90mm, even 105mm, but they are a bit slow maybe. Given I rarely even look at fleaBay nowadays, my chances are slim. My buddy Nes may get something eventually. Must talk to Klaus again...
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 12:01 | 28th Post |
| I have a 135mm f5.6 Componon S mounted in a Nikon T mount so it fits into my PB-5. Next steps are some tuition in UV photography from Robert!!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by novicius: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 14:13 | 29th Post |
jk wrote: Robert wrote:Oh YES , that 24 pce looks so cute despite it`s gargantuan size , and features Tilt as well , a feature sadly lacking on the PC 28 and PC35 , I `m convinced that the PC Nikkors are the best corrected lenses ever .
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by novicius: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 14:25 | 30th Post |
Robert wrote: Good Glass ain't cheap.I `ve got the 24 f2.8 mf which I believe was the first Nikkor with c r c , the one with " bubbles " , every time others see it , they exclaime that it suffers of lens-segregation , to which I reply that it still works fine , the truth is that the bubbles are around the viewing circle , the bubbles are due to the glass formula , it was for a long time the best W-A made by Nikon , around eightyfive thousand were made . Robert , Why the 20mm f3.5 ?
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by Robert: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 16:21 | 31st Post |
novicius wrote:Robert , Good for into the sun - sunsets, very sharp close up and said to be good for IR. The AIS version with the 52mm filter thread. Being an MF, slow, obscure lens it is usually cheap, to me cheap is good. For close work I much prefer an MF lens. With flowers there is no point in focusing on the front parts of the flower, or the front flower of a group, that gives you only half of the available depth of focus on the subject, the rest of the DoF is wasted, giving a very sharp rendering of the air in front of the subject... I try to focus into the flower to the point that the front parts just loose it, then back out a tad. That places the depth of focus so that the inner parts of the flower are usually sharpest, varies of course with different plants.
____________________ Robert. |
| This is topic ID = 604 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > Lenses | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0895 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 208 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0895 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 208 queries executed.