Would 35 mm lenses be optimal for full frame digital?

Lourens Smak wrote:

There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak.

From: Alan Browne

EOS 1Ds, 1Ds Mk II are full frame.

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking of
full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

Lourens Smak wrote:

There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak.

From: Alan Browne

EOS 1Ds, 1Ds Mk II are full frame.

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking of
full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

Bill Hilton wrote:

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking of
full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

Could be, but "There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak." should
have had the exception words (", that takes Nikon lenses.") in that case.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Bill Hilton wrote:

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking of
full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

Could be, but "There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak." should
have had the exception words (", that takes Nikon lenses.") in that case.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Bill Hilton wrote:

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking of
full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

Could be, but "There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak." should
have had the exception words (", that takes Nikon lenses.") in that case.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking
of full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

From: Alan Browne

Could be, but "There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak."
should have had the exception words (", that takes Nikon lenses.") in that
case.

True, but then when you named the others you didn't mention the legendary
Contax full-frame either

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking
of full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

From: Alan Browne

Could be, but "There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak."
should have had the exception words (", that takes Nikon lenses.") in that
case.

True, but then when you named the others you didn't mention the legendary
Contax full-frame either

Since the OP said he had a Nikon body Lourens was probably only thinking
of full-frame bodies that accept Nikon lenses?

From: Alan Browne

Could be, but "There is only 1 such (full-frame) camera, made by Kodak."
should have had the exception words (", that takes Nikon lenses.") in that
case.

True, but then when you named the others you didn't mention the legendary
Contax full-frame either

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:52:30 +0000, Dave wrote:

Lots of cameras use a 35mm film size - I have just bought one myself.

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

Problems can arise if the lens design permits light to strike the
sensor at too much of an angle. Film is far less sensitive to
the angle of the light than the current generation of dSLR sensors.

The other issue mentioned with using a 35mm "film" lens on a dSLR is
flare, due reflections from the sensor off weak coatings towards the
rear of the lens. At least two 3rd party lens manufacturers have
released "digitally optimized" versions of old optical designs
supposedly to address this issue.

I say supposedly, because there are conflicting marketing claims being
made. Nikon claims it isn't an issue due their sensor design. I've
also heard claims that Canon changed lens coatings some time ago to
address the issue. What I haven't seen is before/after shots showing
the effects of the improvements.

You might want to talk to a 14n or Canon 1Ds (Mark I or II) shooter,
but I haven't heard of any such problems with the 70-200 zooms.

I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

Any need to replace manual focus lenses derived from a change in lens
mount (Canon, Minolta) or marketing decisions (Nikon and Pentax). It
would have been trivial for Nikon to offer stop-down metering with AI
and AI-S lenses on the N/F80, D100 and D70, and their decision not to
cost them customers.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:52:30 +0000, Dave wrote:

Lots of cameras use a 35mm film size - I have just bought one myself.

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

Problems can arise if the lens design permits light to strike the
sensor at too much of an angle. Film is far less sensitive to
the angle of the light than the current generation of dSLR sensors.

The other issue mentioned with using a 35mm "film" lens on a dSLR is
flare, due reflections from the sensor off weak coatings towards the
rear of the lens. At least two 3rd party lens manufacturers have
released "digitally optimized" versions of old optical designs
supposedly to address this issue.

I say supposedly, because there are conflicting marketing claims being
made. Nikon claims it isn't an issue due their sensor design. I've
also heard claims that Canon changed lens coatings some time ago to
address the issue. What I haven't seen is before/after shots showing
the effects of the improvements.

You might want to talk to a 14n or Canon 1Ds (Mark I or II) shooter,
but I haven't heard of any such problems with the 70-200 zooms.

I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

Any need to replace manual focus lenses derived from a change in lens
mount (Canon, Minolta) or marketing decisions (Nikon and Pentax). It
would have been trivial for Nikon to offer stop-down metering with AI
and AI-S lenses on the N/F80, D100 and D70, and their decision not to
cost them customers.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.