Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,979   Posts: 1,523,706   Online: 1164
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah Valley
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by gorbas View Post
    Interesting question! I got Nikkor-S 1.4/58mm and did Ai modification. First I tested it on digital body (D7000). It's total dog lens. The worst lenses I have ever seen. I can't believe that Nikon made name with this lens in 1960. The lens I own is in very nice shape with no signs of impact or modification (other than AId). It was so bad that I lost all interest to ever try it on film body. On other hand, Nikkor SC 1.4/50 and Ais 1.4/50 are way better lenses.
    Erm, the D7000 has a relatively high pixel density so of course it's going to exaggerate any flaws a 50-year-old lens might have. DSLRs don't always work well with ancient optics; My DSLR hates some of my old lenses but does fine with others of the same vintage.

    Besides, the pleasantness of a lens' rendering is a highly personal matter. Your mileage may vary, as they say; simply calling a lens a dog because it's less sharp isn't fair.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by gorbas View Post
    Interesting question! I got Nikkor-S 1.4/58mm and did Ai modification. First I tested it on digital body (D7000). It's total dog lens. The worst lenses I have ever seen. I can't believe that Nikon made name with this lens in 1960. The lens I own is in very nice shape with no signs of impact or modification (other than AId). It was so bad that I lost all interest to ever try it on film body. On other hand, Nikkor SC 1.4/50 and Ais 1.4/50 are way better lenses.


    It's really important to bear in mind that the lens was not developed with digital sensors in mind. Because film tends to be much more forgiving, a lot of the "legendary" lenses from that period 50s and 60s, maybe early 70s -- basically the golden era of manual focus lenses -- perform pretty poorly on digital, while continuing to be incredibly charming on film.

    I'm sure someone could offer you a correct and more in-depth explanation of the physics, but I know it has a lot to do with film having physical depth, as well as emulsions not requiring perfectly aligned photons to expose them. A good way to think of it would be the increased ease of hitting a paper plate with a baseball (film), in comparison to hitting the back of a bucket that was turned horizontally on its side (digital).

    It's unfortunate that you were so discouraged...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin