digital VS film lens

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:35:06 -0800 (PST), Romeo Raabe wrote:

> I'm going to buy a new lens 28-300 zoom for my D50, but would prefer
> a film lens which would give me effectively a 44-450 on this digital
> camera. How can I determine if the lens I'm buying is for film,
> versus digital? I don't know the difference between DG and other lens
> designations, can anyone help?

It's easier than you may think. One gremlin you don't have to be
concerned with is whether the lens is considered to be "digital" or
not. So called "digital" or DX lenses are designed to produce an
image compatible with *most* DSLRs which use sensors that are
slightly smaller than the frame of a 35mm film negative. The image
circles that they produce isn't always large enough to completely
cover the negative's frame, or the larger sensors used in FX DSLRs,
which as of today include Canon's 5D and Nikon's D3. The lenses
designed for FX cameras should also work well when mounted on DX
cameras, but they'll tend to be a bit larger and heavier than you'd
expect a comparable DX lens to be.

As for the focal length, both DX and FX lenses specify the true
focal length. Due to the smaller sensor used by DX cameras, you
just multiply a factor that is appropriate for the camera. For
Nikon's DX cameras it is 1.5. So if you buy a 28-300mm zoom lens,
it will be equivalent to a 42-450mm lens on a film SLR. If you get
one of Nikon's nice, old 55mm or 58mm f/1.4 non-zoom lenses, the
equivalent focal length on the D50 would be 82.5 or 87mm.
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

"ASAAR" <caught DeleteThis @22.com> wrote in message
news:06q8m3p09d5n1hiup7c2jkh99qmuflah3b@4ax.com...

> it will be equivalent to a 42-450mm lens on a film SLR. If you get
> one of Nikon's nice, old 55mm or 58mm f/1.4 non-zoom lenses, the

Thank you for not saying "prime." Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

Romeo Raabe wrote:
> I'm going to buy a new lens 28-300 zoom for my D50, but would prefer
> a film lens which would give me effectively a 44-450 on this digital
> camera. How can I determine if the lens I'm buying is for film,
> versus digital? I don't know the difference between DG and other lens
> designations, can anyone help?

There is no difference when it comes to lens measurements - focal length
is focal length. When they say a lens gives you "44-450 effective" what
they mean is that on the digital camera's smaller sensor, you'll get the
same view with the 28-300mm as you would with a 44-450mm lens on a 35mm
*or full-frame-sensor digital* camera.

Beyond that, as Paul says, "The only difference is 'digital' lenses may
have some additional anti-reflective coating...."
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:10:22 GMT, Matt Ion wrote:

> There is no difference when it comes to lens measurements - focal length
> is focal length. When they say a lens gives you "44-450 effective" what
> they mean is that on the digital camera's smaller sensor, you'll get the
> same view with the 28-300mm as you would with a 44-450mm lens on a 35mm
> *or full-frame-sensor digital* camera.

With Nikon's 1.5x factor, it should be 42mm-450mm. Canon's
multiplier is approx. 1.6, so a similar 28-300mm f/l lens would
shoot like a 44.8-480mm lens.


> Beyond that, as Paul says, "The only difference is 'digital' lenses may
> have some additional anti-reflective coating...."

I thought that only Olympus made "digital" lenses? Or maybe
they're the only manufacturer whose digital bodies use truly digital
sensors?
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

"ASAAR" <caught RemoveThis @22.com> wrote in message
news:h1s8m35p5d11972qfplj0hcarnisvsvldd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:10:22 GMT, Matt Ion wrote:
>
>> There is no difference when it comes to lens measurements - focal length
>> is focal length. When they say a lens gives you "44-450 effective" what
>> they mean is that on the digital camera's smaller sensor, you'll get the
>> same view with the 28-300mm as you would with a 44-450mm lens on a 35mm
>> *or full-frame-sensor digital* camera.
>
> With Nikon's 1.5x factor, it should be 42mm-450mm. Canon's
> multiplier is approx. 1.6, so a similar 28-300mm f/l lens would
> shoot like a 44.8-480mm lens.
>
>
>> Beyond that, as Paul says, "The only difference is 'digital' lenses may
>> have some additional anti-reflective coating...."
>
> I thought that only Olympus made "digital" lenses? Or maybe
> they're the only manufacturer whose digital bodies use truly digital
> sensors?
>
I thought that Nikon means by DX as a lens whose image circle only covers
the APS-C format. I know that I can't see any degradation from any of
my full format lenses on my D70.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

Romeo Raabe wrote:
> I'm going to buy a new lens 28-300 zoom for my D50, but would prefer
> a film lens which would give me effectively a 44-450 on this digital
> camera. How can I determine if the lens I'm buying is for film,
> versus digital?

Ok, there seems to be a TON of confusion.
First of all: there are no special lenses for film or special lenses for
digital. A lens is a lens, no matter what. Therefore talking about "would
prefer a film lens" is not very meaningful.

Having said that there are nevertheless a few considerations:
- the sensor in your D50 just like in the majority of dSLR is smaller than
an old-fashioned film by a factor of 1.5. Therefore any(!) lens will have a
viewing angle that is 1.5 times smaller (or a magnification factor that is
1.5 times larger, whatever you prefer) as it would be on a film camera.
Example: a 100mm lens on a dSLR has the same angle of view and the same
magnification as a 150mm lens on a full-size film SLR.

- Nikon and other manufacturers began producing lenses that will project a
smaller image, matching the smaller DX-size sensors of cameras like the D50.
Those lenses are typically smaller and lighter than their full-size
counterparts. While those lenses can be mounted on a full-size SLR the
projected image is too small to cover the whole sensor resp. the whole film
frame and the corners will show significant vignetting. Which is why those
lenses are not suitable for full frame. Nikon's designation for those lenses
is DX.

> I don't know the difference between DG and other lens
> designations, can anyone help?

D-type lenses were introduced in 1992 and can transmit basic distance
information to the camera. Not overly useful, but helps the camera somewhat
to get the flash right.
G-type lenses do not have a manual apperture ring any more. Setting the
apperture can only be done from the camera via electronic control. Your D50
is capable of using G lenses.

AFIAK there is no designation DG because all G-type lenses are D-type anyway
therefore there is no need to spell it out explicitely.

For a complete list of Nikon lens designation please see
http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

jue
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

Jim wrote:
[]
> I thought that Nikon means by DX as a lens whose image circle only
> covers the APS-C format. I know that I can't see any degradation
> from any of my full format lenses on my D70.
>
> Jim

Correct - and the same for other manufacturers. In recent lenses, there
may be other design changes to help working with digital as well.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

Jürgen Exner wrote:
[]
> Ok, there seems to be a TON of confusion.
> First of all: there are no special lenses for film or special lenses
> for digital. A lens is a lens, no matter what. Therefore talking
> about "would prefer a film lens" is not very meaningful.
[]
> jue

In addition to the points you mentioned, "digital" lenses may be designed
with better anti-reflection properties (as seen from the sensor surface).
Lenses for some formats may be designed to produce rays which are more
nearly normal to the sensor surface, and hence less fall-off near the
image edges.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

On Dec 15, 6:30 pm, ASAAR <cau....DeleteThis@22.com> wrote:
>
> I thought that only Olympus made "digital" lenses? Or maybe
> they're the only manufacturer whose digital bodies use truly digital
> sensors?

Since digital lenses are easier to correct (smaller image format), it
makes sense that a company who only sells dslrs would only design such
lenses.
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

David J Taylor wrote:
> In addition to the points you mentioned, "digital" lenses may be
> designed with better anti-reflection properties (as seen from the
> sensor surface). Lenses for some formats may be designed to produce
> rays which are more nearly normal to the sensor surface, and hence
> less fall-off near the image edges.

I personally have not seen any such claims by manufacturers yet (although I
readily admit that I don't study the announcements for new lenses
regularly).
Considering that marketing departments are always desperately looking for
something to brag about, no matter if it's actually bragable or not, I am
somewhat surprised that you don't see big bold red letters announcing
"specially improved for today's digital cameras, now with rear lens coating
and super-parallized rays".

jue
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:44:26 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:

>> it will be equivalent to a 42-450mm lens on a film SLR. If you get
>> one of Nikon's nice, old 55mm or 58mm f/1.4 non-zoom lenses, the
>
> Thank you for not saying "prime." Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I normally reserve my use of "prime" for ribs, numbers and pumps.
If I ever use it to refer to a lens, it would be because it is a
very good one and for some reason I forgot to say 'primo'.
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:43:47 GMT, Jim wrote:

> I thought that Nikon means by DX as a lens whose image circle only covers
> the APS-C format. I know that I can't see any degradation from any of
> my full format lenses on my D70.

Pretty much, but some of Nikon's DX zooms provide an image that's
a bit larger than the APS-C sensor, covering the full FX frame over
a good part of the zoom's range. Fortunately, you'll see any severe
vignetting in the viewfinder, so there shouldn't be any unexpected
surprises. My old, full format (FX) Nikkor lenses also work nicely
on my D50.
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens 

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> In addition to the points you mentioned, "digital" lenses may be
>> designed with better anti-reflection properties (as seen from the
>> sensor surface). Lenses for some formats may be designed to produce
>> rays which are more nearly normal to the sensor surface, and hence
>> less fall-off near the image edges.
>
> I personally have not seen any such claims by manufacturers yet
> (although I readily admit that I don't study the announcements for
> new lenses regularly).
> Considering that marketing departments are always desperately looking
> for something to brag about, no matter if it's actually bragable or
> not, I am somewhat surprised that you don't see big bold red letters
> announcing "specially improved for today's digital cameras, now with
> rear lens coating and super-parallized rays".
>
> jue

Jue,

I thought that improved telecentricity was a major feature of Olympus 4/3
lenses?
http://dpnow.com/310b.html

Not quite so sure about the coatings, though.....

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: digital VS film lens