Messages

241

Lenses / Re: Old film camera lenses for DSLRs?

« on: April 05, 2011, 12:52:15 PM »

Question for all - has anyone found any old film "vintage" lens to be significantly superior to a current day sister lens in terms or image quality on a canon DSLR? Or has it just been a matter of price for those or who gone down this route?

I personally don't buy into the "made for digital" scenario or that today's lenses have to be better because DSLRs are oh so much sharper and better than film. I don't think that holds water but it is very difficult to test or proof. I actually have seen tests that seem to indicate that good film cameras with good film processed correctly are still resolving more detail than good digital cameras.

I'm still shooting film (135, 6x7, 4x5) and I use a mix of modern (low end) and vintage lenses on my t2i so I can actually address this pretty directly.

"Made for digital" (beyond EF vs EF-S, which is obviously a big deal) boils down mostly to a better coating on the rear element to resist flare.  Digital sensors are brighter and reflect more light into the camera than film (which is matte dark gray) so this is one factor.  Not sure it makes a big difference.  My guess is some of Canon's very latest zooms are optimized for the 7d/60d/t2i's ultra-dense sensor, though, but I'm not sure since I won't spend that much money to find out.  Film has never had this much resolution so this may be the case.

Which brings me to:  the sharpest scan of the sharpest color film with the sharpest lenses at full frame (36x24mm) picks up details only a 24MP (maybe) full frame camera would pick up.  However, they are extremely fuzzy and full of grain because film's mtf curve is much more gradually soft than digital as it approaches extinction and film is just, well, really grainy.  So even if the detail is technically there sometimes, perceptually full frame digital is closer to 6x7 film and yes, I have compared prints.  Some have said it surpasses 4x5 and 8x10.  I'm not convinced one bit, maybe it's close to 4x5 but not 8x10, no way.

Old lenses do pretty well on digital..  The 50mm nikkors are all great, but their others are a bit softer.  The 35mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens at f4, but on digital f1.4 is not good.  All these ultra-fast primes were made for shooting 100ISO film and so light sensitivity mattered way more than sharpness.  Once stopped down, old lenses are sometimes very, very impressive, even those from the 1960s.  Very wide fast lenses and zooms (anything requiring aspherical elements and computer-aided designs) are MUCH better now than they used to be.  There were two big innovations in design:  multicoating, which allowed for lots of elements to correct aberrations (this happened in the 1960s, about) and in the past 20 years computer-aided design.  Multicoating resulted in good, fast primes with decent contrast and correction for aberrations.  Computer-aided design resulted in new, amazing zooms, and the rare mega-element fast wide angle prime. Most modern primes in normal focal lengths are only trivially better than older versions, at best, and retain very similar, rather simple optical designs.  I do have the feeling that Nikon's new G series primes finally put to rest its earlier versions by being so much sharper at f1.4 with less coma, but look at the prices!  And most of my nikon lenses from 20-40 years ago are still as sharp at f4 or f5.6 and they were really inexpensive (I bought them years ago, before prices went up).

One last note:  imperfect infinity focus on a lens adapter is usually something one can deal with by focusing with live view, BUT it screws with close focus correction (floating elements) pretty badly so most newer wide lenses and anything that focuses internally gets bad results with it, generally.

242

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: March 13, 2011, 12:45:26 PM »

Not entirely as wild about the third one, but those are all really great shots.  I agree about image quality.  This thing isn't perfect, especially toward the long end, but it's outrageously good for the price.  Pictures like those remind me that my money is probably better spent in classes (or on trips to places worth photographing) than on more gear, which is kind of too bad since I like gear.

243

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: March 07, 2011, 01:46:08 PM »

I admire them, too.  I have only been doing photography for about a year and when I decided to move to 4x5 a few months ago I thought it would be great, but the cost of film is too high for just practice.  So now I am trying digital to develop my eye before going back to 4x5, but it is frustrating leaving behind the colors of velvia, which digital cannot imitate.  If you still shoot slide film at all, try it out; it's great!  Don't use 100, which is bad.

Except for the color and grain (which is a matter of taste), there's no point shooting anything other than 4x5 or 8x10 if you shoot color film.  You need a drum scan of 4x5 to surpass a full frame dSLR, and some would argue the dSLR is better than 4x5.  8x10 is the only format that really is noticeably better than digital, imo, but I do not own an 8x10 camera.  That said you will never get visible distortion or chromatic aberration with 4x5, even with wide lenses.  I'm looking forward to trying it again soon.

244

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: March 06, 2011, 08:18:16 PM »

I would like to blame the camera, but it actually got spot on at 7500K and I changed it to daylight.  I use the daylight (5200K) preset because I'm used to shooting slides (4x5 velvia) and so when my late day shots aren't blue I freak out.  Which is really a bad habit with digital, because obviously a neutral white balance is better most of the time and I would use photoshop to get closer to one if I were shooting slides.

245

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: March 06, 2011, 03:06:41 PM »

Wow, that is a lot better.  No more fringing.  I like the blue look but now it looks kind of extreme.  I might have to rethink my tendency to always shoot at daylight color balance, which is a bad habit I picked up from shooting slides.  Or at least be more conservative about it.  Thanks for the advice.

246

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: March 06, 2011, 01:16:32 AM »

Speaking of square format, I took another winter shot I liked and cropped to a perfect square.

Unfortunately the trees have a lot of blue fringing around them.  I'm not sure why.  I don't think it's from the lens.  Maybe all digital cameras do this.

247

EOS Bodies / Re: someone please advise me

« on: February 23, 2011, 04:32:59 PM »

I didn't mean to start a big argument, I'm just of the opinion that for quality work the gear has to be transparent to the process.  If this means using simple gear or auto mode, that's fine; if it means hiring assistants, that's fine; if it means painstakingly learning technical stuff, that's fine, too, so long as the technical aspects don't inhibit one's aesthetic vision.  There are 8x10 photographers who won't shoot f64 because of diffraction.  But what if you need the depth of field?  Technical mastery can nag and nag.  Focus on the subject.  Focus on the composition.

I talked for a while with a premier aerial photographer and he has a bag full of L lenses but mostly shoots auto (though he's programmed in a preferred maximum ISO) and his approach is a lot like taking tons and tons of good (really, extremely good) snapshots.  A friend of mine won an award for directing at Sundance and I asked him what lenses and stock he used; he didn't know, but he was able to collaborate with other, more technical people to get what he wanted.  David Muench moved from a 4x5 linhof to a point and shoot because he finds it more transparent (I'm not a big fan of his work, though).  Annie Leibovitz is notorious for having an army of assistants doing all the technical work for her so she can focus on conceptual and aesthetic concerns.

Technical concerns need only be addressed once you're not getting what you need and so you have to turn somewhere to get there.  Depending on your subject matter and style, you may need to learn a lot technically, or maybe learn nothing at all.  But if you're busy thinking "oh, is this the best f-stop, oh should I try out this bounce card I just bought, is this stop too soft in the corners, etc." to the extent that you're not thinking "how does the image work" it's all over.  If you're thinking "my lens has f1.4; I need shallow focus" or "I have a ballhead so now I can do hdr" all hope is lost, the subject has surrendered to technique. I have a tendency to behave this way and my photos are generally bad.  I don't mind as much as I should since it's a hobby for me, but I'd still like to improve, of course.

A transparent translation from subject to photo, if by technical mastery, assistants, or auto mode, is the key to making a vision work.  You're right that Crewdson has a huge budget and huge crew, but visual and thematic concerns persist in his images (which are, at least in my opinion, very good) so I don't care if he set the stop himself or not, he "owns" the image more than most any photographer can claim to.  If you're getting what you want out of your gear, whether as a hobbyist, professional, or fine art photographer, that's what matters.  There used to be this big fear of SLRs rather than view cameras, then TTL metering, now it's a fear of the "auto" setting in general.  If it works for you and translates your vision to pixels, there's nothing to fear.  Technique alone isn't art.

248

EOS Bodies / Re: someone please advise me

« on: February 22, 2011, 09:42:08 PM »

I still disagree, if a person only uses full auto and gets good results, why do you think he's not talented enough to own a DSLR?

This is absolutely true.  Some of the most talented filmmakers and photographers I've met aren't at all technical beyond the minimum amount they need to be to get good work, either using assistants or highly automated workflows to get the technical stuff right.

It's relatively easy to make a technically good photograph (f-stops, color temperature, shutter speeds, ISO, contrast ratio, basic studio lighting, photoshop, etc. take a while to learn but it's really pretty simple and easy to teach); a great eye is extremely rare.  I think Paul McCartney never learned to read music.  Just saying.

As for the original question, based on my experience with the t2i, 7d, and d90 (but none of the cameras in question, so, heh) Nikons have cleaner sensors and a smoother "plastic" (but not in a bad way) look, especially at lower ISOs.  There is a real difference, however small, although I suspect there's some on-chip noise reduction or something going on with newer Nikon cameras.  Even the 5DII has a little noise at low ISOs.  Canons have nice colors, though, and produce good images in general.  The current sensor is very good and the small technical difference won't make or break anything.    At 100% magnification on screen you'll find fault but prints, even up to huge sizes, will look great.  A little noise reduction in raw developer will hide any difference, anyway.  It's so minor.

249

Lenses / Re: Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!

« on: February 21, 2011, 05:50:44 PM »

Of course shallow focus is a factor, but it's mostly useful for portraiture, and we have nice lenses for that, as I mentioned.  I think shallow depth of field is so popular now simply because it's the easiest way to tell something was shot on a more expensive lens.  Originally speed was marketed to photojournalists more than it was marketed for shallow focus effects.

If you're shooting cropped and really want shallow focus or low light ability, keep the zooms and get a full frame camera.  Your f2.8 lenses will "feel" like f1.8 at equivalent FOVs and noise will be far reduced.  Of course there's a place for ultra-fast lenses, but that place is a niche in the market, for better or worse, and niche products are expensive.

250

Lenses / Is there really a market?

« on: February 21, 2011, 04:04:59 PM »

Fast primes were designed largely so that the operator could handhold, or get close to hand holding, in natural light at 100ISO (now 400ISO).  With digital, you can shoot 3200ISO okay and IS works incredibly well.  The "need for speed" isn't quite what it used to be, lens-wise.  It's obvious where the money is now:  zooms, f2.8 zooms for professionals and wealthy amateurs, kit lenses for the rest of us.  Zooms cover the majority of functionality across just a few lenses and the current ones are great.  I don't think it would be worth the money developing equally optically advanced primes.  First of all because old primes work well enough, secondly because they're more of a specialty item.

The really useful primes are there:  fast 85mm and 105mm for portraiture, 17mm and 24mm t/s for architecture and 90mm t/s for products.  I don't think there's much of a market for the rest, except as specialty items for wealthy amateurs, which is what all the MF Zeiss lenses are.  I would like to see a 35mm f1.8 EF-S IS or something at a reasonable price, but the plastic 50mm and it would probably cannibalize one another's sales.

251

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: January 31, 2011, 10:40:58 PM »

Thanks!  It really was cold:  -6º F, I think.

You've posted some nice shots here, you've got a good eye.  And I always like the squarer aspect ratio.  Let me know if eschewing hyperfocal technique works for you.  So far it's worked for me, though corners remain softish.

252

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: January 23, 2011, 10:00:23 PM »

I didn't realize the xsi had the new autofocus system.  I guess that's not what's wrong with your lens, then.  Personally, I don't trust hyperfocal technique entirely on APS-C sensors (or digital in general, the pixels are so small--so much resolution in a tiny chip) and just use autofocus so that might be worth a try.  I do have to admit that I essentially use the kit lens as an 18mm prime.

I also never meant to imply that APS-C isn't worthy of good lenses (in fact, it may need them more than FF does), just that (on the wide end, at least) the 10-22mm and 17-55m lenses make a lot more sense than L lenses, which are bulky and expensive for their superfluous coverage.  Unfortunately I can only afford "budget" lenses.  But I like having a small, plastic camera.  I would really like a tilt/shift lens because I like perspective correction, but they are very expensive and digital is clean enough that you can correct that in post and just stop down for the dof.

I have a 6x7 slr.  Not as cool as a 6x6 tlr, imo, but I really like the waist level finder and aspect ratio.  Live view is nice, too, though.  I can focus more accurately with it than with any other viewfinder, so I use it a lot, but the rebel's optical finder is very poor for judging focus--only good for composition (and even then it cuts off the edges a bit).

253

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: January 19, 2011, 09:50:49 PM »

Thanks!  The conditions were great.  Better than the shot would indicate (more fog, but modern zooms cut through it, for better or worse).

No filters, just a 1-stop virtual grad in camera raw.  The camera wanted to shoot for shade white balance, but I processed for daylight, and that plus some curves and dodge/burn brought out the blues.

254

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

« on: January 19, 2011, 08:10:22 PM »

Had to process the **** out of this to reduce CA and distortion, but sharpness is pretty respectable, good for an 8x10:

255

EOS Bodies / Re: 60D video problem

« on: January 18, 2011, 03:41:12 PM »

Is your card a Transcend?  I've seen those bars (but only very rarely so far, fingers crossed).