Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bandit127]

Err - no for another reason. Film lenses are designed to cover a wider area than a DSLR sensor occupies. So you get less vignetting and distortion using them on a DSLR than you did on a 35mm camera. As long as they were decent then, they will be as good or better now

Yes but at what expense? You will lose resolution over a lens of the same focal length designed for the correct frame size, for example. How much vignetting occurs at the frame edges is just one of the many parameters that goes into designing the lens, and the whole game is a set of compromises. By not using the whole distortion-free frame that the lens is producing you will lose out somewhere else.

Granted it would be foolish to throw away an expensive collection of glass and buy it all over again if the focal length and quality of the lens will remain in a useful range but you win some, you lose some. :-/

Kevin

You don't lose resolution since that is a function of the sharpness of the lens. Almost by definition, the sharpest area of the lens is the centre. By using a 35mm lens on a DSLR, you lose only the most aberrated outside area.

What you do lose is:
Minimum focussing distance (now 1.5 times what it was).
Wide angle. As above, a 28mm lens is now 42mm.
Any accuracy in a manual focal length graduation on the lens.

Certainly, anyone with a good collection of 35mm autofocus glass should buy a body to suit and only consider new lenses for the shorter end of the scale.

[Ken T]

I know not in the 2 chosen types, but Minolta (renamed Sony !) are quite good and well respected. They have anti shake built into the body, and the new Sony Alpha's  use the same mount, so you can use a lot of AF lenses from the Dynax 9000 series onwards. There's a lot of lenses and accessories about at good prices.

Ken