4 ms·

> Cameras that used 24x36mm sensors returned photographers' favorite lenses to the FOVs they were already long comfortable with. And, of course, the second was

> Cameras that used 24x36mm sensors returned photographers' favorite lenses to the FOVs they were already long comfortable with. And, of course, the second was prestige. Status is a very strong motivator in the photography hobby. "Full-frame" sensor cameras were bigger and more expensive, their "image quality" at least detectably ahead of that of smaller sensors. Some of us have also been patiently waiting for "full frame" DSLR bodies are doing it because a fast normal lens (so-called because it has (much handwaving) roughly the same field of view as your eyes) is so cheap as to be basically free compared to a nice DSLR body. A similarly fast and sharp 28mm or 35mm (roughly a normal lens on an APS-C-sized sensor) is vastly more expensive, if it's available at all. Pentax[0], to my (limited) knowledge never made a 35mm or 28mm lens that came close to matching the speed and sharpness of the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, which can be had <$50 US on ebay. The first 28mm f/2 I see listed is $430, the much commoner f/2.8 and f/3.5 are much cheaper, but give up a lot in low light performance. The 50mm f/1.7 is a mighty fine lens; the arguably better 50mm f/1.4 goes for <$100. It's not until you're looking at the rare, super fast, and arguably yet better still (I have no personal experience) 50mm f/1.2 that you hit the price range of the 28mm f/2. So whether you're buying at the peanuts end of the price range or the high end, you're giving up a stop and a half of low light performance going with APS-C over 24x36. It could be argued that with ever improving digital sensors, low light performance in a lens is less important now than ever. There's probably merit to that. Still, as mentioned in TFA the faster lenses let you make different choices with regards to depth of field than you have with a slower lens. I'd rather have that choice, historical preferences of f/64 notwithstanding. [0] I'm not going into lens generations here. As an extremely casual user, I buy what's good, used, and cheap. I'm strictly an M42 and SMC-M guy, and can't compare with anything newer; my overall impression from reading reviews is that the SMC-K, -M, and -A generations are largely comparable for the same focal length and aperture. The M42 generations are adequately comparable, at least for folks like me.

Sharlin 8y ago
On the other hand, to my knowledge very few if any small-and-cheap double-Gauss "nifty fifties" are particularly great wide open on modern high-resolution sensors. Though it could be argued that the current drive for ultra-sharpness among the "Ad-Am" crowd again stems more from prestige—and the tendency to pixel-peep—rather than any real need. Especially in a world where the vast majority of photos are viewed at low resolutions, highly compressed, and on small screens. Mirrorless, with its short backfocus distance compared to SLRs, does bring onto table the feasibility of inexpensive and compact "normal" lenses for APS-C and smaller sensors. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.8 for MFT is a good example, as is the recently announced Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4.
- foldr 8y ago
  If you'll forgive me for adding some of the usual anecdotal noise to this discussion, I have been surprised before by how well older lenses perform with modern sensors. For example, I bought a Nikon 40mm f/2.8 G AF-S DX Micro to replace an ancient 55mm pre-AI Micro Nikkor, but found that the Micro Nikkor produced noticeably sharper results. I was using a D3300 with a 24MP APS-C sensor. The pixel density of that sensor exceeds the practical resolving limit of 35mm film in the 1960s by a wide margin. (It would be a 50MP sensor if it was full frame.)
  - rangibaby 8y ago
    I can think of a few possibilities: - AN lens is over-engineered. They didn't have CAD to help them design a lens that is perfectly "sharp enough" at a certain resolution so just made a design that had way more resolving power than it needed. The downside is that the AN lens probably cost more new when adjusted for inflation. e.g. Voigtlander lenses for Nikon may seem expensive but adjusted for inflation they are comparable in price to Nikon's made in Japan, all-metal lenses from back in the day. - Sample variation. Maybe your new lens is a dud; it happens - user error. More than once I have seen a lens review call a lens soft when the test picture is obviously not focused correctly
- mauvehaus 8y ago
  Most of the reviews of the Pentax fifties contain words to the effect that they aren't super sharp around the edges of the frame wide open, but that they sharpen up by f/2. I don't have any background in optics, but I've operated under the assumption that most lenses at full aperture necessarily compromise some resolution for speed, meaning you have the same loss of resolution with a 28mm or 35mm lens at full aperture. Are other focal lengths of different designs where this doesn't hold true? Do modern sensors have enough more resolution than film that they show the loss of sharpness in the lens at smaller apertures? I'm curious because I'll be looking for a (used) DSLR body at some point in the next few years. At least in the Pentax world, most of the commentary about old lenses on new bodies centers around the lack of the mechanical aperture coupling on the newer bodies, and the compromises stemming from that (stop-down metering, mostly).
_ph_ 8y ago
The biggest problem of most APS-C cameras is, that that they use the mount and the lenses made for 35mm. Of course, the 50mm equivalent for any format is usually the easiest lens to make cheap and good. A good 35mm equivalent starts getting more expensive. This problem doesn't exist with a system, where all lenses are matched to the sensor size. This becomes very apparent with mFT: the 25mm, like the Olympus 25/1.8 are stunningly good for a very reasonable price.
rangibaby 8y ago
35mm f/2 Nikkor from the 50s is one example of a fast and good lens (comparable to "nifty 50" at any f/stop and only a little bit bigger and heavier). The latest development of that lens is a cheap fast normal prime for Nikon's crop system, the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX Nikkor. It's ~$200 new BTW I love M42 Takumars. Auto-Takumar 55mm f/2 is one of my prized possessions :-)

Sharlin 8y ago

On the other hand, to my knowledge very few if any small-and-cheap double-Gauss "nifty fifties" are particularly great wide open on modern high-resolution sensors. Though it could be argued that the current drive for ultra-sharpness among the "Ad-Am" crowd again stems more from prestige—and the tendency to pixel-peep—rather than any real need. Especially in a world where the vast majority of photos are viewed at low resolutions, highly compressed, and on small screens. Mirrorless, with its short backfocus distance compared to SLRs, does bring onto table the feasibility of inexpensive and compact "normal" lenses for APS-C and smaller sensors. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.8 for MFT is a good example, as is the recently announced Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4.

foldr 8y ago
If you'll forgive me for adding some of the usual anecdotal noise to this discussion, I have been surprised before by how well older lenses perform with modern sensors. For example, I bought a Nikon 40mm f/2.8 G AF-S DX Micro to replace an ancient 55mm pre-AI Micro Nikkor, but found that the Micro Nikkor produced noticeably sharper results. I was using a D3300 with a 24MP APS-C sensor. The pixel density of that sensor exceeds the practical resolving limit of 35mm film in the 1960s by a wide margin. (It would be a 50MP sensor if it was full frame.)
- rangibaby 8y ago
  I can think of a few possibilities: - AN lens is over-engineered. They didn't have CAD to help them design a lens that is perfectly "sharp enough" at a certain resolution so just made a design that had way more resolving power than it needed. The downside is that the AN lens probably cost more new when adjusted for inflation. e.g. Voigtlander lenses for Nikon may seem expensive but adjusted for inflation they are comparable in price to Nikon's made in Japan, all-metal lenses from back in the day. - Sample variation. Maybe your new lens is a dud; it happens - user error. More than once I have seen a lens review call a lens soft when the test picture is obviously not focused correctly
mauvehaus 8y ago
Most of the reviews of the Pentax fifties contain words to the effect that they aren't super sharp around the edges of the frame wide open, but that they sharpen up by f/2. I don't have any background in optics, but I've operated under the assumption that most lenses at full aperture necessarily compromise some resolution for speed, meaning you have the same loss of resolution with a 28mm or 35mm lens at full aperture. Are other focal lengths of different designs where this doesn't hold true? Do modern sensors have enough more resolution than film that they show the loss of sharpness in the lens at smaller apertures? I'm curious because I'll be looking for a (used) DSLR body at some point in the next few years. At least in the Pentax world, most of the commentary about old lenses on new bodies centers around the lack of the mechanical aperture coupling on the newer bodies, and the compromises stemming from that (stop-down metering, mostly).

_ph_ 8y ago

The biggest problem of most APS-C cameras is, that that they use the mount and the lenses made for 35mm. Of course, the 50mm equivalent for any format is usually the easiest lens to make cheap and good. A good 35mm equivalent starts getting more expensive. This problem doesn't exist with a system, where all lenses are matched to the sensor size. This becomes very apparent with mFT: the 25mm, like the Olympus 25/1.8 are stunningly good for a very reasonable price.

rangibaby 8y ago

35mm f/2 Nikkor from the 50s is one example of a fast and good lens (comparable to "nifty 50" at any f/stop and only a little bit bigger and heavier). The latest development of that lens is a cheap fast normal prime for Nikon's crop system, the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX Nikkor. It's ~$200 new BTW I love M42 Takumars. Auto-Takumar 55mm f/2 is one of my prized possessions :-)