Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What lens to buy?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:36:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi All,

I recently purchased a Nikon D70 digital SLR camera and it came with a lens
28-70mm.
I am considering to purchase a lens 70-300mm and I want to know if I can buy
a lens which is not optimised for digital cameras. From what I understand,
the digital cameras CCD are very shiny and if using normal lens, ghosting
might appear due to the reflection from the CCD surface. On the other hand,
I am not sure if the lens I can purchase and are designed for DSLR will be
compatible with DSLR cameras with full frame chips. I hope that maybe in
five years from now I will be able to purchase a full frame DSLR for about
the same price I paid for Nikon D70...

Regards,
Nicolae

More about : lens buy

Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:36:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Nicolae Fieraru wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I recently purchased a Nikon D70 digital SLR camera and it came with a lens
> 28-70mm.
> I am considering to purchase a lens 70-300mm and I want to know if I can buy
> a lens which is not optimised for digital cameras. From what I understand,
> the digital cameras CCD are very shiny and if using normal lens, ghosting
> might appear due to the reflection from the CCD surface. On the other hand,
> I am not sure if the lens I can purchase and are designed for DSLR will be
> compatible with DSLR cameras with full frame chips. I hope that maybe in
> five years from now I will be able to purchase a full frame DSLR for about
> the same price I paid for Nikon D70...


I don't think there is any "shiny" effect. The cropped frame is a
serious issue though. I recommend a 70-200 full frame plus a 1.4x
teleconverter to get to 280 (or 2x for 400) because you will have much
better quality up to 200. But, full frame sensors are unlikely to ever
become cheap due to the manufacturing quality control issues being
exponential as size increases so the new DX crop frame 55-200 might be
the way to go... only time will tell. Computer advances are all based on
miniaturization and full frame sensors buck that trend so are an
exception to the rule (for now).


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 9, 2005 4:36:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Nicolae Fieraru wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I recently purchased a Nikon D70 digital SLR camera and it came with a
> lens 28-70mm.
> I am considering to purchase a lens 70-300mm and I want to know if I can
> buy a lens which is not optimised for digital cameras. From what I
> understand, the digital cameras CCD are very shiny and if using normal
> lens, ghosting might appear due to the reflection from the CCD surface.

That's a new one. The most comon issue is sold cheap film lenses are too low
in resolution for the newest high MP APS size sensor dSLR's


> On
> the other hand, I am not sure if the lens I can purchase and are designed
> for DSLR will be compatible with DSLR cameras with full frame chips.

So? =IF= that happens, worry about it then.

> I
> hope that maybe in five years from now I will be able to purchase a full
> frame DSLR for about the same price I paid for Nikon D70...
>

And I hope they will make a car in 5 years that performs like a Corvette for
the same price as a base Honda Civic today. That isn't likely either.

--

Stacey
Related resources
May 9, 2005 4:36:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <427eccb7@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
Nicolae Fieraru <nospam@please.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>I recently purchased a Nikon D70 digital SLR camera and it came with a lens
>28-70mm.
>I am considering to purchase a lens 70-300mm and I want to know if I can buy
>a lens which is not optimised for digital cameras. From what I understand,

Do consider whether you might be better off with a long prime. For the
price of the zoom, you might be able to find a less expensive prime
which is faster and sharper at the extreme length. I think I'd find a
good 200mm lens much more useful than a 70-200 zoom, which would
probably end up being set to 200mm whenever I used it.

>the digital cameras CCD are very shiny and if using normal lens, ghosting
>might appear due to the reflection from the CCD surface. On the other hand,
>I am not sure if the lens I can purchase and are designed for DSLR will be
>compatible with DSLR cameras with full frame chips. I hope that maybe in
>five years from now I will be able to purchase a full frame DSLR for about
>the same price I paid for Nikon D70...
>
>Regards,
>Nicolae
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:36:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Nicolae Fieraru" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
news:427eccb7@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Hi All,
>
> I recently purchased a Nikon D70 digital SLR camera and it came with a
> lens 28-70mm.
> I am considering to purchase a lens 70-300mm and I want to know if I can
> buy a lens which is not optimised for digital cameras. From what I
> understand, the digital cameras CCD are very shiny and if using normal
> lens, ghosting might appear due to the reflection from the CCD surface. On
> the other hand, I am not sure if the lens I can purchase and are designed
> for DSLR will be compatible with DSLR cameras with full frame chips. I
> hope that maybe in five years from now I will be able to purchase a full
> frame DSLR for about the same price I paid for Nikon D70...
>
> Regards,
> Nicolae
>
>

I have read articles that address the condition you mention. In that light
of information I have also read where some lenses that are labeled for
digital cameras are the same lenses as were used for film cameras, exception
being the rear elements are now also coated to reduce the bounced flare from
the CCD therefore making them more compatible for use with digital cameras.

A lens once designed for film that now has its rear elements coated to
reduce the bounce flare that you speak of, can also be used on digital
cameras that have full frame sensors. It's not the coatings you should be
concerned about. Just don't buy lenses that are specifically designed for a
specific APS size sensor and camera model. Besides, five or six years from
now, Nikon may design a new mount for an altogether new digital full frame
camera. Relax Nicolae and enjoy what you have. The time to address your
concern is when you shop for a particular lens to be used on the camera of
your choice. Ask the person who is selling the lens you're interested in
buying if it can be used on a full sensor camera of the camera model you
have chosen. A lot can happen to digital camera designs five or six years
from now.

It's my guess, that high performance digital cameras will not get bigger but
they will get smaller and you may well have worried about your present day
lens buying concerns needlessly. It's my *gut feel* that there is more
projected obsolesence built into digital camera systems than there were for
film camera systems. But economic cycles are built upon things changing.
Shrug, YMMV.
May 9, 2005 4:36:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> Computer advances are all based on
> miniaturization and full frame sensors buck that trend so are an
> exception to the rule (for now).
>

That's what people seem to be ignoring. Nowhere else has improvements and
lower prices gone with larger semiconductors. the reason they get cheaper
is the devices get smaller with fewer componets. Look at the size of a
computer chip die size today vs what they looked like 10 years ago. Hint:
they didn't get bigger.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:36:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3e87h1F1m0miU3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Computer advances are all based on
>> miniaturization and full frame sensors buck that trend so are an
>> exception to the rule (for now).
>>
>
> That's what people seem to be ignoring. Nowhere else has improvements and
>lower prices gone with larger semiconductors. the reason they get cheaper
>is the devices get smaller with fewer componets. Look at the size of a
>computer chip die size today vs what they looked like 10 years ago. Hint:
>they didn't get bigger.

Actually -- they did in many cases -- but with many times more
functionality in that somewhat larger area.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Regarding the price of the full frame DSLR's in the future, I still believe
they will become cheaper. Maybe they will not get as cheap as 8MP DSLR are
today, but I think they will become at least 50% cheaper in five years.
The LCD screens were a lot more expensive 10 years ago. I think the price
for a 15" LCD was around $3500 or more ten years ago (I might be wrong).
About two years ago a coleague of mine purchased a 15" LDC and now with the
same money he could have purchased a 17" or even a 19" LCD monitor. A
computer with a processor 286 with only a few thousand transistors inside
had a huge price compared with the computers available today. The processors
kept evolving, but they didn't become more expensive for a long period. I am
aware the chip size didn't become larger, they increased the components
density, used thinner tracks, lowered the voltage, etc.
So far the full frame CCD chips are expensive because the rate of defect is
very high, maybe they will improve this in the future, either with a new
technology, or by improving the manufacturing process. Only time will tell
us what will be.

Regards,
Nicolae
May 9, 2005 8:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Nicolae Fieraru wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I recently purchased a Nikon D70 digital SLR camera and it came with a lens
> 28-70mm.
> I am considering to purchase a lens 70-300mm and I want to know if I can buy
> a lens which is not optimised for digital cameras. From what I understand,
> the digital cameras CCD are very shiny and if using normal lens, ghosting
> might appear due to the reflection from the CCD surface. On the other hand,
> I am not sure if the lens I can purchase and are designed for DSLR will be
> compatible with DSLR cameras with full frame chips. I hope that maybe in
> five years from now I will be able to purchase a full frame DSLR for about
> the same price I paid for Nikon D70...
>
> Regards,
> Nicolae
>

Don't expect DX format to go away any time soon. The many advantages
outweigh the disadvantages for people who pay for cameras with their own
money. If Nikon was to surprise the "full frame" fans, then it would be
very cool if they did it with a square format camera (maybe not even an
SLR) to suit 35mm format nikkor lenses. That would be interesting - much
more so than a 35mm sized sensor IMO.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frederick wrote:
>
> Don't expect DX format to go away any time soon. The many advantages
> outweigh the disadvantages for people who pay for cameras with their own
> money. If Nikon was to surprise the "full frame" fans, then it would be
> very cool if they did it with a square format camera (maybe not even an
> SLR) to suit 35mm format nikkor lenses. That would be interesting - much
> more so than a 35mm sized sensor IMO.

How would a 27-ish mm square frame take advantage of a 35mm lens other
than being able to claim lots-o-megapixels?


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 9, 2005 11:27:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
> Frederick wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't expect DX format to go away any time soon. The many advantages
>> outweigh the disadvantages for people who pay for cameras with their
>> own money. If Nikon was to surprise the "full frame" fans, then it
>> would be very cool if they did it with a square format camera (maybe
>> not even an SLR) to suit 35mm format nikkor lenses. That would be
>> interesting - much more so than a 35mm sized sensor IMO.
>
>
> How would a 27-ish mm square frame take advantage of a 35mm lens other
> than being able to claim lots-o-megapixels?
>
>
No waste of lens resolution.
No portrait/landsape format - crop as you desire (no market for vertical
grips?)
At d2X (or greater) pixel density, then large format challenging
resolution - so long as the lenses are up to it.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:01:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Nicolae Fieraru" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
news:427eccb7@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Hi All,
>
> I recently purchased a Nikon D70 digital SLR camera and it came with a
> lens 28-70mm.
> I am considering to purchase a lens 70-300mm and I want to know if I can
> buy a lens which is not optimised for digital cameras. From what I
> understand, the digital cameras CCD are very shiny and if using normal
> lens, ghosting might appear due to the reflection from the CCD surface. On
> the other hand, I am not sure if the lens I can purchase and are designed
> for DSLR will be compatible with DSLR cameras with full frame chips. I
> hope that maybe in five years from now I will be able to purchase a full
> frame DSLR for about the same price I paid for Nikon D70...
>
> Regards,
> Nicolae

I use some older Nikkor lenses on my D70 with no ill effects at all, so I
don't see a problem. With regards to the new DSLR format, I've read that it
may be the new standard. As far as I can see, while we wait for a
competitively priced full-frame DSLR, all the R&D is going into cameras and
lenses for that new "standard." I got the 18~70 lens (kit lens), and found
it to be quite the bargain.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:23:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> But, full frame sensors are unlikely to ever
> become cheap due to the manufacturing quality control issues being
> exponential as size increases

Never say "Never", Paul. <g>


--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:26:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> That's a new one. The most comon issue is sold cheap film lenses are too
low
> in resolution for the newest high MP APS size sensor dSLR's

How is a lens's resolution expressed? Lines per inch? How do the lens
resolution units apply to pixels or sharpness? Is the resolution usually
published in the lens literature?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:57:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <e17ge.10489$VH2.10091@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:
>> That's a new one. The most comon issue is sold cheap film lenses are too
>low
>> in resolution for the newest high MP APS size sensor dSLR's
>
>How is a lens's resolution expressed? Lines per inch?

It is properly expressed by a graph of the MTF (Modulation
Transfer Function), which is a measure of the contrast available at
varying resolutions of grids of 100% contrast bar patterns.

The units used are "line pairs per millimeter" along the X-axis
of the graph, with the Y-axis being the contrast measured. The "line
pair" is one black line and one white line of the same width. As you
get closer and closer to the resolution limit of the lens, the difference
in brightness between the dark and the light decreases.

And a proper test checks the lens at several locations, with the
extremes being the center and the extreme corners.

And these tests are performed with the lens mounted on an
optical bench, with a microscope scanning across the image plane, and
sensors in the microscope measuring the relative brightness of the
different areas -- usually under computer control. That way, the
variations between batches of film, or processing temperatures, or
whatever are minimized (for film cameras).

> How do the lens
>resolution units apply to pixels or sharpness?

Well ... you should determine (or calculate) the number of
pixels per mm, and ideally should have sufficient resolution to put bars
at the maximum usable resolution every other pixel. Anything beyond
that will cause aliasing (that is say you have pixels every 0.01mm, and
have bars or spaces every 0.009mm, what you will wind up with is a very
low frequency brightening and darkening as the bars move from perfectly
in line with the sensor pixels to half-on, half-off. Normally, the
camera will have an anti-aliasing filter above the sensor to minimize
this effect. But too aggressive an anti-aliasing filter can lose you
resolution which you could otherwise capture.

A real-world example of aliasing is the Moire (spelling? And
missing accent mark?) patterns which you see when you are looking
through two layers of window screening, such as when looking through
two sides of screening at the corner of a porch from outside.

> Is the resolution usually
>published in the lens literature?

Unlikely. But you can find lens review sites (or test articles
in magazines) which publish the charts.

Here is one site which tests lenses, and has posted MTF
information on some of the tested lenses:

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

For whatever reason, I can't seem to access the graphs today. But they
are boasting of a new format, so the problem may be attributable to
that. :-)


Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:57:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:

>>But, full frame sensors are unlikely to ever
>>become cheap due to the manufacturing quality control issues being
>>exponential as size increases
>
>
> Never say "Never", Paul. <g>


I sure hope it's not never because I'm invested in full frame glass now
though I'm experiencing some buyer's remorse. I screwed up before buying
computer features I thought I might need & never did. But lenses will
hopefully continue to be a more stable commodity, plus there wasn't a
reasonable option for the lenses I got: $300 more for a crop frame super
wide Nikon versus the Sigma I got, no other options in a fast VR 200mm.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:03:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<snip great deal of good info>

> Here is one site which tests lenses, and has posted MTF
> information on some of the tested lenses:
>
> http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

Thanks DoN for a very good explanation. I'll check the link in the morning.

Cheers!

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:03:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:

> <snip great deal of good info>
>
>>Here is one site which tests lenses, and has posted MTF
>>information on some of the tested lenses:
>>
>>http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
>
>
> Thanks DoN for a very good explanation. I'll check the link in the morning.
>
> Cheers!


Yes, thanks, I didn't know they used a microscope to inspect. I've also
seen folks post links to the Japanese web pages of the major
manufacturers with MTF charts. Of course that's quite possibly biased &
I can't read anything but the numbers.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:28:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:19:49 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, thanks, I didn't know they used a microscope to inspect. I've also
> seen folks post links to the Japanese web pages of the major
> manufacturers with MTF charts. Of course that's quite possibly biased &
> I can't read anything but the numbers.

I've heard it said -- with how much truth I don't know -- that
Canon's MTF charts are based on the theoretical, not the measured,
performance of a given lens.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:48:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> I've heard it said -- with how much truth I don't know -- that
> Canon's MTF charts are based on the theoretical, not the measured,
> performance of a given lens.

As I've stated before, NEVER, trust OEM MTF graphs. Unfortunately,
independant, single rig testers like photodo don't seem to be around
anymore. Photodo hasn't been updated in a couple years, and at that you
have to 'trick' the graphs to appear. Tedious and getting dated.



--
-- 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: Remove FreeLunch.
!