gkl Loc: Old Lyme, CT

One of the factors is the Improvement in Len Coatings. Look up the following:

About the reduction of reflections for camera lenses
How T*-coating made glass invisible
by Dr. Vladan Blahnik and Dr. Benjamin Voelker
March 2016
© Carl

A Zeiss technical report on web. Everything you want to know plus more. I performed my own test between the following lenses on Sony A7-Rii:

Summicron f2/35mm (symmetric, series IV)
APO Kern-Macro-Switar f1.8/50mm. 1964

*****
Voightlander – APO Lanthar:
f2/35mm
f2.8/110mm Macro

Somewhat apple and oranges and the Summicron is non-APO. However, the new coatings result in significantly improved contrast

radiojohn

Adapters are pretty cheap. Best to just try and see of you like it.

JDefebaugh

With respect to clinical sharpness today’s best lenses will out perform virtually all film era lenses wide open across the entire image frame, and will continue to be sharper in the corners even as you stop down; however, for all practical purposes sharpness of some the best legacy glass “catches up” or gets more than close enough in the center and mid frame as you stop down. But, while sharpness is important, clinical laboratory wall chart test sharpness is not the be all end all. Other important lens attributes like rendering, color signature, bokeh etc. are subjective and for many favor legacy glass. To me it’s the end game that drives the answer: if you are shooting commercial product images or doing real estate / architectural photography, or want high resolution images for large landscape prints, legacy glass would not be my first choice. On the other hand, for certain other applications such as portraits legacy glass can be fantastic on digital.

delder Loc: Maryland

I actually JUST came by [Birthday present from my Brother] a Legacy Nikon Kit with an early "E" Series 50 mm 1.8.
This is, of course COMPLETELY manual on my D3100. It does take me back in time with setting everything for each shot. Compared to my Nikon Kit ZOOM Lenses, it is a nice piece of glass.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you're not using manual focus lenses on digital mirrorless bodies in 2023, you're simply not doing it right. Your D3100 provides no stabilization, and no assistance in focusing the lens.

delder Loc: Maryland

I won't disagree with you, but my Photograpy Budget is somewhat limited.
[D3100 is my newest CAMERA][S23 Samsung Smartphone is almost current but I use MANY features on it]
My "Mirrorless" Cameras are all 1-15 year old Digital Point & Shoot.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Apophasis, Paul (Chg-Canon) has given you excellent advise. Modern lenses are better built and their optical formulas are better also. It does not mean old lenses are useless with digital. I still use with my Nikon cameras lenses that Nikon manufactured in the 70's, 80's and 90's without issues.
Those lenses, by the way, are in general bought in the second hand market at bargain prices. I bet the lenses you mentioned will do fine with digital.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

A few years ago, my local (one of the few that are left) camera shop had a mint-condition 180mm f2.8 in their "used" display case. I inquired about it, and the owner said, "Take it home, play with it for a couple of weeks and, if you like it, I'll make you a deal.".

So, I did exactly that. The sharpness and color rendition were mind-blowing. Because the AF was "screw-drive" on my D7200, it wasn't the fastest focusing, but I can live with that, as I came up not ever having AF, so big deal.

Long story short… I told my wife that I had to call the guy the next day to pay for the lens. I really wanted it. He was asking, I believe $425 (that was on the tag), and I figured he'd take a little off, maybe throw in a filter, I didn't know. So, my wife hands me her phone and shows a copy of the receipt as she'd already bought the lens for me. What was the "deal"? I was amazed. $240. Lowest I've seen on KEH for a "mint" or "like-new" copy was $380.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any such thing as a "film" or "digital" lens. A lens is a lens, am I wrong on that? I've used older "film" lenses such as 5he 50mm f1.4, 105mm f2.5 and 180mm f2.8 and they work great.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You asked for a correction, we'll give it to you. Brands that change their lens mount, now including Nikon, allow for such a differentiation. Although lenses from the film era of cameras now can be adapted to mirrorless digital cameras, their mirrorless-mount lenses cannot be adapted to SLR-style bodies. Also, as stated repeatedly, digital mirrorless bodies tend to enable non-electronic film-era lenses in ways that make them better than they ever performed on legacy film or DSLR bodies.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Not really answering the question. I asked if there was such a thing as a "digital" lens as compared to a "film" lens and I still say no there is not. Not talking about "mirrorless", since not everyone has jumped onto that bandwagon. Just comparing SLR to DSLR, and not looking at the lens mount at all, is there any significant difference in, for example, a 50mm f1.4 AI-s and a 50mm F1.4 AFS, other than the "AF" part, of course. Considering only optical differences.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Well, even in the Nikon world, there are issues whether a AF-capable lens even retains that feature on certain Nikon bodies, just ask anyone with a D3xxx or D5xxx body. Canon made a hard break, where none of their MF lenses on the FD (or earlier) mounts were compatible with electronic SLR and DSLR bodies. Obvious compatibility issues that exist over and over across multiple brands and lens mounts, demonstrating a designation and differentiation of film vs digital lens type.

MJPerini

Modern lenses in general have gotten better, for several reasons: Major advances in computer aided design, Similar advances in manufacturing technology, advances in optical glass types, and the wider mount size and shorter flange focal distance in . In addition , lenses designed for digital sensors have somewhat different optimization than film.
However that is NOT saying all modern lenses are better than older lenses. There are many classic lenses that were brilliant then and brilliant now. In addition many of the most loved older lenses were loved at least in part for their somewhat unique drawing, or for certain quirks.
If you love a lens , use it. Will a lens you love for film translate perfectly to a digital sensor? Not always.
The progress that has been made in Cameras and Lenses in the last 20 years is remarkable, (and welcome b most), but it is Technical progress. ---more things are now possible, or easier to achieve, which is great.
But that is different from Artistic Progress. Truly Great Photographs still get made, but they do not seem to be more plentiful than in the film era.
So if by 'Better' you mean more technically accurate and 'sharper in the corners' and less distortion, or 'sharper wide open' the answer is probably Yes. Will it be easier to achieve the good results in more situations, again, probably Yes. But will your pictures be BETTER, in general, probably not.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

<Enter ChgCanon mode>

Real photographers don't need stabilization.

<Exit ChgCanon mode>

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Lens designs are NOT static. MANY manufacturers of lenses reformulated their optics after the advent of digital cameras. Some, like Canon, had already updated entire lenses when they introduced new mounts to overcome limitations of old mounts as they added autofocus in the lenses.

The most obvious changes in the film-to-digital transition were the addition of more electronic lens-to-body communications and the sealing of the focus and zoom mechanisms to reduce or prevent dust from entering the body when the lens was focused or zoomed. Anti-flare coatings have also been improved in most modern formulations. Stabilizers have been added to many lenses, necessitating rearrangement of elements and reformulation of entire optics. Recently, those stabilizers have sometimes been integrated with in-body image stabilization systems.

Some companies have released new versions of the same lenses three or more times in the digital era alone! As sensor technology has improved, demand for higher performance optics has skyrocketed. Once we got past 12 MP, we exceeded the resolution of most 35mm films. So if you had a lens that could not resolve all the detail that a 24 or 30 MP sensor captures, you were hamstrung with blurry images. For instance, Panasonic Lumix just released newly Leica-certified versions of their 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8 zooms (equivalent full frame fields of view: 24-70mm and 70-200mm). The original and version II were both inspired by Leica designs, but now the glass, coatings, and optical path meet Leica specifications. Version II had better coatings, faster autofocus, and marginally improved stabilization. Version III mostly improves optical performance and reduces flare even more.