Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by einst_stein@yahoo.com, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I am looking forward to the full frame 35mm DSLR.

    Recently I heard that most high performance 35mm lenses did not keep
    their reputation when used on digital body. How true is this? What is
    "most"? > 50%? <50%? Is it true that the prime lenses are more so
    (because they are digital ignorant "old" formula).

    Could Zeiss's new RF be viewed as a way to admit this on their Contax-G
    series?

    Also, from the explanation I heard, the rangefinder would suffer more
    of this type of problem. Anyone who has insight understnading on Leica
    M care to comment?

    35mm DSLR's momentum is based on the well established system of 35mm
    lenses and accessories, or is based on the assumption of this. Does
    this assumption still hold?
    , Jun 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    >I am looking forward to the full frame 35mm DSLR.
    >
    > Recently I heard that most high performance 35mm lenses did not keep
    > their reputation when used on digital body. How true is this? What is
    > "most"? > 50%? <50%? Is it true that the prime lenses are more so
    > (because they are digital ignorant "old" formula).
    >
    > Could Zeiss's new RF be viewed as a way to admit this on their
    > Contax-G series?
    >
    > Also, from the explanation I heard, the rangefinder would suffer more
    > of this type of problem. Anyone who has insight understnading on Leica
    > M care to comment?
    >
    > 35mm DSLR's momentum is based on the well established system of 35mm
    > lenses and accessories, or is based on the assumption of this. Does
    > this assumption still hold?


    You have a lot of possible issues.

    First if you are looking at true full frame 35mm I assume you are
    talking about a dSLR that has a full 35mm size sensor. If that is the case
    then the lens must cover the exact same area as it would in a film SLR. The
    potential differences include the issue of digital vs film and the angle of
    the light reaching the sensor vs film. I don't know if either is a real
    issue.

    If you are talking about most dSLR's they use a reduced sensor size, so
    a standard 35mm lens would be cropped. Only part of the possible image
    would be recorded meaning less angle of view and less total information
    recorded. The usual relationship is about 1:1.6

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Jun 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > I am looking forward to the full frame 35mm DSLR.
    >
    > Recently I heard that most high performance 35mm lenses did not keep
    > their reputation when used on digital body. How true is this? What is
    > "most"? > 50%? <50%? Is it true that the prime lenses are more so
    > (because they are digital ignorant "old" formula).


    Not true at all for the lenses I have experience with.
    I use Canon. When Canon went to the EOS lens mount, they
    chose a very large mounting ring opening, and that reduces
    possibility of vignetting or other restrictions on lens design.
    If there is a camera with a small mounting ring (like the very
    old exactas), the lens mount could cause limitations.
    Performance has been excellent in my experience. I believe this is
    true also of Nikon, as friends with Nikon equipment have never
    indicated any such problem.

    I have more than a dozen lenses personally, ranging from 24mm f/2.8
    to 500 mm f/4 L IS and have never seen an issue with lens performance
    between film and digital. The only lenses that will not field the full
    field are the new digital specific lenses (generally very short
    focal lengths), so if you purchase them, you may not be able to use
    them in the future. In fact, the Canon EOS-S lenses do not work
    on the 1D Mark II body (1.3 factor). EOS-S lenses only work on
    1.6 factor bodies.

    I've also used other lenses at work and from friends, and have never
    seen one that had a performance problem with digital.

    Roger Clark
    Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 1, 2005
    #3
  4. dylan Guest

    >EOS-S lenses only work on 1.6 factor bodies.

    They don't work on my 10D, I believe they only work on the 300D, 20D and
    350D.
    dylan, Jun 1, 2005
    #4
  5. Bill Hilton Guest

    > I am looking forward to the full frame 35mm DSLR.

    You can buy one today from Canon, a new 16 Mpix 1Ds M II for $8,000 or
    used 11 Mpix 1Ds for about half that. Or the recently discontinued
    Kodak 14n/c models.

    >Recently I heard that most high performance 35mm lenses did not
    >keep their reputation when used on digital body. How true is this?


    I have a 1Ds and several "high performance 35 mm lenses" in the L
    series, including 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 L's, 180 L macro, 300 f/4 L, 400
    f/5.6 L and 500 f/4 L IS and can assure you that there are no problems
    with digital with any of these lenses.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Jun 1, 2005
    #5
  6. jojo Guest

    one of the unsung beauties of the Canon system is the tilt-shift lenses
    (45mm, 90mm & 24mm)! I have perspective control while other
    photographers using $30k Phase One and Leafs on, say, a Mamiya 645 or a
    Hasselblad do not!
    jojo, Jun 2, 2005
    #6
  7. "jojo" <> wrote:

    > one of the unsung beauties of the Canon system is the tilt-shift lenses
    > (45mm, 90mm & 24mm)! I have perspective control while other
    > photographers using $30k Phase One and Leafs on, say, a Mamiya 645 or a
    > Hasselblad do not!


    Mamiya makes a shift (but not tilt) lens for the 645 (in the useful 50mm
    focal length), and the Hartblei shift/tilt lenses can be used on a lot of MF
    cameras. For tilt in the studio, I'd think you could put a digital back on
    the Hassy Arc body or any of a variety of 6x9 view cameras with any lens you
    pleased. A tad inconvenient for location work, though.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 2, 2005
    #7
  8. Stacey Guest

    jojo wrote:

    > one of the unsung beauties of the Canon system is the tilt-shift lenses
    > (45mm, 90mm & 24mm)! I have perspective control while other
    > photographers using $30k Phase One and Leafs on, say, a Mamiya 645 or a
    > Hasselblad do not!


    On a mamiya there are several shift and tilt shift lenses to choose from,
    especially if you consider all the ones in p-6 mount.
    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Jun 2, 2005
    #8
  9. jojo Guest

    fyi, the Hasselblad Arcbody is long disconitinued, and now the Flexbody
    is too. I almost bought a Flexbody a few years back and then borrowed
    one and found it very tedious to use. Now that Canon is up to 16
    megapixels, I find little draw in the more expensive systems (and this
    is coming from a long-time Hasselblad and Sinar user...)

    Regards-
    jo
    jojo, Jun 4, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. J. Sm
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,155
    Mark Roberts
    Oct 8, 2003
  2. zxcvar
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    789
    zxcvar
    Dec 28, 2003
  3. R2D2

    4/3 vs APS vs 35mm Full Frame Sensors

    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    8,058
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2004
  4. measekite

    Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses

    measekite, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    642
    Mueen Nawaz
    Sep 13, 2006
  5. bob
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    2,342
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jul 3, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page