Odie-Jay Loc: Was Littleton, CO now Overland Park, KS

I have seen some lenses listed as "optimized for digital" and would like to know if this a real thing or an advertising gimmick. I sometimes use older lenses from the film camera days for close ups with acceptable success. Am I missing something?
Thanks in advance for any assistance.

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

The only thing you need is my address so you can dispose of all those useless lenses you have ! :XD:

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

For the most part, the biggest difference is simply that lens and manufacturing technologies are better today than they were 20 years ago. A 35mm lens made before 1990 might not be as well corrected in a number of ways than one designed in the last 5 years. A short or medium range zoom of recent design will be significantly better corrected across the zoom range.

With higher resolving power (more pixels) the resolving power of lenses is more important today than it used to be.

But modern multilayer coatings are actually designed differently for digital. Some, though not all, older lenses can suffer from reflections from the sensor back towards the lens, which then reflects that light back towards the sensor. Film isn't nearly as reflective as an electronic sensor, so it wasn't important before digital. With digital some lenses in bright light will show a very definite round blob of light reflected from the rear element of the lens! Modern designs with the right coatings can avoid that.

MW

I'll buy that there has been an improvement in lens quality since the pre-digital days. In particular with respect to zooms. In the case of my first SLR I don't even recall that there was a zoom for that brand. In the case of primes I'm less convinced.

In the case of the rear element coaring and sensor reflectivity, that certainly sounds plausible but I wonder how co.mon it actually is. I've bought a couple of older film era lenses on Ebay and whatever their faults might ha e been, the didn't include what you describ.

So I think there is some truth to the "optimized for digital" ad copy, I suspect its something of an overstatement.

Odie-Jay Loc: Was Littleton, CO now Overland Park, KS

Have 3 fixed lenses 50mm 55mm and 28mm I use them taking close ups with ext rings and reversing ring. Just wondering if quality is being sacrificed.

Odie-Jay Loc: Was Littleton, CO now Overland Park, KS

Thanks Apaflo and MW. I had a 75-260 years ago that was super sharp but lost it in family dispute. The three I am working with are primes and used for close up work. In what I am doing, haven't noticed any internal reflections. I will try to be alert for that in the future but do not see any need for a new close up aka macro lens at the moment.

Again, thank all of you for your kind assistance.

Don L G

Sales tool GO glass is go glass

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Yes.

More so if they were made in the 1800's. Less so if they are 1900's vintage. More so if they were meant to be the stock lens supplied with an enlarger, less so if they were typically purchased as a replacement. More so if the aren't 35mm camera lenses, less so if they are.

Should we assume they were marketed by Sears, have M42 mounts, and came with a Chinon camera in 1975...

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Three questions though. 1) Would you know it if you saw it? 2) Do you do your photography in situations that would cause it? 3) Are those specific lenses more susceptible, or less.

Basically it will just look like regular flare for the most part, and will probably be seen along with the regular form of flare. Most people don't really know when they see that either, unless it is extremely severe. Flare commonly presents as reflections that show the shape of the diaphragm blades, but it can also be a blob, and it can be a star pattern. The most common form though, and the one that is all but impossible to "see", is just an overall haze that lowers the contrast of the entire image!

Situations that make flare more likely are those with a very bright but small source of light. The sun is usually what we see, but any source of light that shines directly on the front element of the lens is a potential. The more the lens is stopped down, the more likely flare will be visible as a distinct shape. Also any mechanism that puts a greater distance between the back of the lens and the sensor will reduce the chances of seeing flare. Hence macro photography is less likely to be affect than focusing at normal distances, just because often the closeup focus is obtained by extending in the sensor to lens distance.

Lens design can also be a big factor. Wide angle lenses tend to have a rear element that is closer to the sensor, while that is very rare for a telephoto lens. A concave rear element will focus the light while a concave element will spread it out and be harder to see.

Hence it isn't surprising that some photographers have seen the effects often, and other never.

Odie-Jay Loc: Was Littleton, CO now Overland Park, KS

Basically it will just look like regular flare for the most part, and will probably be seen along with the regular form of flare. Most people don't really know when they see that either, unless it is extremely severe. Flare commonly presents as reflections that show the shape of the diaphragm blades, but it can also be a blob, and it can be a star pattern. The most common form though, and the one that is all but impossible to "see", is just an overall haze that lowers the contrast of the entire image!

Situations that make flare more likely are those with a very bright but small source of light. The sun is usually what we see, but any source of light that shines directly on the front element of the lens is a potential. The more the lens is stopped down, the more likely flare will be visible as a distinct shape. Also any mechanism that puts a greater distance between the back of the lens and the sensor will reduce the chances of seeing flare. Hence macro photography is less likely to be affect than focusing at normal distances, just because often the closeup focus is obtained by extending in the sensor to lens distance.

Lens design can also be a big factor. Wide angle lenses tend to have a rear element that is closer to the sensor, while that is very rare for a telephoto lens. A concave rear element will focus the light while a concave element will spread it out and be harder to see.

Hence it isn't surprising that some photographers have seen the effects often, and other never.[/quote]

I have not noticed any pattern flare (may not have been severe enough) and freely admit that I would miss a contrast loss. Most work done with light from both sides and much of it copy work. 50mm Nikkor H f1:2 55mm Micro Nikkor f1:3.5 28mm Soligar f1:2.8 Nikon D3200 All 3 lenses from the mid to late 70's used on Nikon F and Nikkormat

Again, thanks for your reply and the knowledge you have shared.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Odie-Jay, TC is trying to cheat you out of your lenses. I, on the other hand, am willing to pay you up to $1.00 for each such lens, and, as a favor, and to show you that not all UHH members are as underhanded as TC, am willing to pay part of the shipping costs. Please PM if interested.

Odie-Jay Loc: Was Littleton, CO now Overland Park, KS

No pm's forthwith.
Still using the lenses. From replies to this topic am learning possible (probable) short comings and figuring the work around. They are not dead yet, just have their limitations.
Thanks

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

You are wise. Accept the limitations of the lenses, but exploit the strengths.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I think you have to judge each lens on its own merits. "Optimized for digital" isn't a specific, regulated term that actually means anything. One $500 lens can be better than another, regardless of when it was made.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

In the early days of digital, "optimized" could mean "limited to DX or APS-C coverage (image circle). It also meant (usually) that the lens had better dust seals, because older, cheaper zooms sucked air into the body, depositing grease and metal shavings and other debris on the sensor.

Better coatings and lens designs HAVE been developed for digital camera lenses. Film was a LOT more forgiving, or less demanding, a medium.