Hi,

Please can you let me know the asking price

Hi Nigel,

Sent a Pm in response

Regards

Oh Nigel, I did say I would stay quiet but I felt the need to respond given your last post; the biggest issue for me would be CAs being noticable when I make large crops.

I have currently just completed several hundred promotional photos for an international sporting village which will be displayed as collages for each sport. The collages will have two A3 size and three A4 size prints and will be displayed throughout the facilities in offices, corridors. Recreational areas etc, representing all the sports.

As a general rule, basic photographic print quality starts at 140 pixels per inch (ppi) whereas exhibition prints are typically run off at 300 ppi.

So at 200 pp1 the K3 can print very nice quality prints at 20 x 30 inch and very high resolution images at A3 (11.69 x 16.53 inche)

The K3 captures an image which is 4000 x 6016 pixels but as the prints will be displayed under mat finished plastic protectors in the frames and viewed at about 30inches then printing at medium quality is sufficient.

The A3 size print measures 11.69 x 16.53 inches so if the print is based on the the full uncropped image then at that quality and viewing distance CAs would have to be severe to be noticeable

But if the A3 image is based on a higher resolution print ( 300 + ppi) the definition is finer the CAs will be more prominent.

Worst still if the print is from selective crop of say +400% then CAs will be very noticeable as the print image detail would be equivalent to a much bigger print.

So for the modern enthusiast' a 24 megapixel sensor is quite cable of of exposing optical aberrations very conspicuously on heavily cropped images whether on screen or print.

Hence my cautionary attitude to using a non ideal lens type that can introduce such defects.

I have produced hundreds of high magnification macro and close up technical images over the years which are usually detailed images of metal components and metal surfaces.

There are always lots of highlights, high contrast features and reflections with the added problem of intricate detail and texture.

This is where defects are not just prominent but can be enhanced . CAs focussed in high contrast boundaries or very fine but severe reflection points will always be visible in varying degrees.

Such highlights and hi contrast boundaries and details will all display halo defects and reflected highlights, fringing and CAs as would a large crop viewed on a screen.

In Summary;

A K3 with a nice lens can produce a very large image size so much so that to me the biggest advantage comes from being able to use greatly enlarged crops and occasionally large display prints so as a precaution I display them on a PC at " actual pixel size" to see if there is /are noticeable CAs and fringing.

Remember CAs are most acute on conventional wide angle lenses, good quality long telephoto lenses will be much less prone to creating the defects ( narrower convergence angles).

Whereas such defects would have be " undesirable" on a large exhibition or display print for a pro, for the enthusiasts it who does not make many big prints the problem still exists and is relevant greatly enlarged crops if it is there.

So using an older conventional wide angle lens on a high resolution digital sensor inhibits our ability to make large selective crops which is my priority these days

Nigel, resolution tables for conventional lenses wont tell you much if anything about the propensity of a specific conventional lens to exhibit these problems if used on a digital body because it is not about lens resolution or quality it is about lens type.


Some conventional lenses by the way were remarkable performers on film cameras.

If you would like to talk to me about this send me a pm with your contact and I will phone you .

Regards

Hi Bill,

You are correct to pick me up on that but what I was alluding too and was a fact is that "back in the day" the number of people who owned and used a " capable camera" and who would regularly print 14x11 or larger, was few and usually limited to enthusiasts and pros.

The digital era however, put millions of cameras out there and for sure none of us will know many people who don' t own a camera that takes pretty good photos; but what happens to those photos ; they are most often presented in small in screen formats, PC,s tablets and cellphones.

The main consumer is social media and the cameras are used as just another communication tool where a decent image for on-screen display is eminently possible and acceptable to this enormous mass market.

We members of such enthusiast sites a PU however, aspire to pursue the enthusiasts and pro standards and the older contingent coming from the Kodachrome 25 and slow film days are probably even more focussed on that ideal.

What would be interesting is for everyone to count up all the pictures the have taken and kept and how many get printed as enlargments.

I would be most surprised if the % of enlargement of the total photos taken even amongst "us enthusiasts" would be better than a minute fraction of the shots.

Whereas , although there was only a minute population of photographers in the film era I suspect balance of enthusiast was larger as a proportion in that smaller population of camera owners.


The large majority of the enormous population of camera owners today who can take good photos, don't try to be enthusiast but are social photographers and will like never print above A4 ( if that)

If they do and they do it would be a poster print run off on a computerised automated printer which will get the best out of the prints., AND THERE IS NOWT WRONG WITH THAT.

The great advantage of the digital era is not only can everyone get an affordable camera but the cameras perfectly suit the social media photography and imaging of today.

In the pre Digital era, Printing was the stock media; holiday albums etc for the causal family photographer where 24 prints could cost half a days wages was the norm.Enthusiast of the day pursued exhibition, competition or professional standards; much harder to achieve with the old film, lens and camera technologies and as I said restricted to the couple of dozen enthusiast in the camera clubs or the pros who were few and far between outside the major cities.

i myself had a pretty successful wedding business and for sure larger prints ( 20 x 16, and bigger) were part of the offer. Photo books today are most common and rarely contain A4 images but will have very attractive high quality collages of much smaller images; and cost the earth.

Both my daughters were married in the last two years, I gave up the will to live when I saw the cost of the story book albums which although they were breathtaking are produced with one tenth of the time and application of a 36 shot album of x 7x 5 and 12x8 prints or some other older enlargement size

As regards the original post re' using film lenses on digital bodies, it was tabled as an observation and discussion aimed at anyone aspiring to a professional standard as a photographer or wanting on occasions to make exhibition quality enlargements.

If we are not going to do that, then use any good lens but ask yourself do you need a K3 or something even more expensive.

The thing I love about Pentax is that a good standard of image quality can be achieved at a very low cost so maybe if aspirations are not to make exhibition standard prints or huge crops it might be more prudent to buy a less expensive body and a more expensive lens; a DA * will turn out breathtaking quality on the least expensive body in the right hands

i wasn't going to write anymore on this thread but Bill did make a good point in his response and was right to pick me up regarding my assertion on printing 14x11 enlargements.

Now I have nothing more to say and feel I am " old codgering here" so I will be quiet on this from today.

It was a good topic though and I thank you all for your contributions and the sharing of your own opinions and experiences from which we can all learn.

Regards

Bearing in mind the commentary above from Mr McGregor;

Firstly let me underline one thing, the purpose of raising a topic on such a forum is to share / gain knowledge and experience - not to "make a fuss" as you put it Nigel.

My philosophy is always respect and pay attention to the science. which is what I am sharing in this topic in a very simplistic way - not making a fuss

As regards the thread of the topic, it was raised because seemingly it is increasingly accepted that film lenses (sometimes quite older lenses) can be used on state of the art high resolution DSLR's

I have said repeatedly in some cases they can but in some cases they shouldn't be used as they impair final IQ and most definitely don't get the bess from the camera

What is curious to me about your commentary is that on this same forum lenses are reviewed and CA, fringing and sharpness are principle evaluation points that influence the final assessment of the lens because to varying degrees affect IQ, in some case negligibly in other critical applications, seriously.

Additionally on an almost daily daily basis we see queries as to the comparative image quality of various lenses and the very well understood CAs ,fringing and associated defect are commented on.

Take a look at the reviews on the excellent Pentax HD converter and likely you will see references to such defects all be it in the case of this converter they are at a better than acceptable

For clarification the physics is well known image sensors require collimated telecentric light impingement where as film lenses are based on converging ray impingement.

Wide angle film lenses are most prone to the IQ defects mentioned when used on a Digital camera and are of most concerned telephoto film lenses are are less prone to the problem but are not ideal

In the case of serious enthusiasts, people involved in technical photographic applications and Pros in general, the fundamental principle is to minimise any potential image defects that are associated with the quality of lenses and to ensure the lenses enable the performance of the camera to be optimised and not impaired by the lens quality.

All mountable lens camera combinations will enable a photo to be taken, whether it would be at competition, exhibition or saleable standard is another thing.

If a photographer does not need to concern themselves with such IQ defects then top class film lenses are an option even though there might not be a need to buy a state of the art body if that is the case

To most hobbyist a budget camera and budget modern lens will surpass IQ requirements and the defect mentioned above won't bother them or the viewer of the final image .

Yet still people make choices and will buy or dismiss a lens based on expert reviews and technical evaluation.

All people with a camera in their hands concentrate on getting the best image hence we aspire to buy the best kit we can afford, so then all we have to struggle with is Feild conditions which are ever changing

As regards the comment that I have not been specific I think you need to re read what I and others have written here it relates to defects associated with the way light rays impinge on the film plane or image sensors

These types of defects ie. Chromatic Aberrations in the form of spurious highlights, halos, fringing and the like, are well documented understood as defects, and examples can be seen on many lens reviews; you surely must know what they are of course unless you are the one photographer who has never suffered with them or conversely ignore them or in fact don't no what they are.

my final comment on the subject highlights another aspect that will increasingly render conventional lenses "challenged" because todays sensors enable enormous crops and enlargements which means we also enlarge the defects too.

Large format film lenses apart, 35 mm lenses were rarely pushed further to 14x11 prints.

A K3 will produce images much larger and if the lens is older technology and in particular not tele-centric the aberrations and image will be much more prevalent.

When you put a 1.4 x converter on your DA* 300 which is a superb optic, mounted on a K3; take a shot of a static object then put it on screen, select an area and enlarge the image to "actual pixel size" and copy it.

Then do the same without the converter and you will see the negative affect of the converter.

However providing you are not intending to make display images/prints and limit yourself to a laptop screen, mobile phone or 7 x5 print you won't notice it ; AND THAT IS FINE.

However as sensor size and resolution gets bigger and better we need to pay attention to the increasing limitations of older lenses, particularly wide angles with their more acute convergence angles

I come from the professional era of Kodachrome 64 and very slow film, sometimes very low shutter speeds for ultimate quality when like today lens and camera design and spec' was aimed at ultimate quality .

Today being able to use high ISO, shake reduction and other technologies is incredible but the downside is it can seriously expose the limitations of older lenses.

All I know is this; some of the images I have had published in the distant past would not make it today and on a recent indoor sports shoot it became clear to me that
even 7 or 8 years ago I simply could not have taken some of the pictures I took that day; because the lens technology was not available and Iso 800 film would have produced extremely poor quality

A) I would have needed a flash ( not permitted at courtside)
B) I couldn't have focussed to dark
C) I couldn't have hand held
Aperture size limitations
Lens quality at wide open aperture not good enough
Maximum ISO limited to 400 to avoid grain etc

Etc, etc

If the photo application (IQ) doesn't warrant concern about the typical defects mentioned throughout the thread then consider them and make sure you minimise them by using the best of the film lenses; but bear in mind you might not need to buy a K3 .

I have said all I can say based on my experience as a working photographer of many years but will always read other peoples opinions in the hope I continue learning, I certainly align with some of the comments from Mr Stafford (CABSTAR) and Mr Halliwell9 (Johnha) above

But frankly there is very little chance, if any that I would use an old conventional lens on a K3 or a 6D instead of a DA* star or a Canon EF if I am on a commission - IT WOULD HAVE NO ADVANTAGE TO DO SO

My philosophy is always respect and pay attention to the science.

Regard













Sent from my iPhone=

In answer to Mr McGregor's question, I doubt a pro would not be worried about the technical performance of a modern lens because a pro or enthusiast would likely not invest in a lens that would be subject to performance and quality limitations as regards the final picture quality.

Slightly rephrasing his question to make it more aligned to the discussion ; would a pro be concerned about the potential limitations of having no alternative but to use an older lower spec conventional lens if for some reason his new pro spec. Lens was not available for a demanding and prestigious shoot.

Of course any pro would be concerned, particularly if the shots were to be the subject of of professional scrutiny by a client ahead of them being used for, published materials, big enlargements, big crops or were to be put up as large display prints.

No one would be sitting there thinking specifically about convergence angles but they would be concerned about the performance limitations of such a lens when measured against the state of the art pro'spec lens that was the lens purchased for such a professional shoot.

It is not necessary to understand the science but the technical evolution of lenses is based on the evolving technological developments of photographic equipment.

When anyone, whether a pro, enthusiast or hobbyist photographer spend their hard earned shekels on a beautiful new K3 it is not ideal to then stick a twenty five year old lens on it.

I have several twenty five year old lenses ( in fact I have a some that are older) , that were the ultimate performers of their day and they still turn out respectable results on twenty year old film cameras ; they certainly would not bring out the best in a K3 or indeed a state of the art film camera.

So the whole point of the principle question of this thread is fundamental in that last statement.

To ask a pro photographer if he is worried about about convergence angles when he is doing his job is not a serious consideration, and clearly does not address the discussion.

In any technical product we to have pay due respect to the evolution of the technology; would we replace the engine in a new BMW with a a thirty year old well used engine even if it is perfect working order

Would the owner be worried about the different combustion pressures or cylinder block metallurgy if the car wasn't able to perform as it it did with the latest motor, no only the fact that the engine didn't do justice to the rest of the technology.

As I said above, we don't need to understand the science but we do need to pay due respect to it before we mix different generations of technology between interdependent components that define the end result, the picture.

It has been very interesting to read everyone's comments regarding this topic and as always there is some real wisdom and firm opinion coming through.

I most certainly understand the value of the conventional lenses and have quite a collection of Canon, Pentax and the independents, some of which are used when appropriate to image requirements.

Most of them were purchased as professinal spec lenses at the time and some of them can still "hold their own" in specific applications.

Whilst (as an engineer) my first consideration when purchasing anything is the technical spec' and performance data I am the first underline that in some cases the technical performance data can be startlingly good on some of the more venerable lenses we all "keep".

Also it is clear to me that outside of technical imagery , like all photographers I do consider the artistic and aesthetic elements of photography as being at least equal too if not more important than the technical aspects in some branches of the art of photographic imagery and that has a bearing in weather to part with or make an older lens redundant.

I have been heavily involved in all branches of macro photograpy over the years, particularly in technology/technical areas of my work and I still use a manual focus 100 mm Pentax Macro from the eighties alongside two state of the art digital macro lenses I have used extensively in recent times.

In black and white, technical applications it is superb and preferred to the newer lenses, but when it comes to high magnification, high contrast colour images I reach for one of the newer macros dependent on focal length.

As regards older telephotos, several months ago I sent a couple of sample shots over to John Riley to get his experienced opinion on them; they were taken with a Tokina 400mm ATX telephoto ( F4.5) which I bought some years ago, and I wad seeking John's opinion as to how the Tokina ATX compared to a 500 mm Sigma I was thinking of buying.

I had previously undertaken numerous comparisons to my DA*300 and DA* 200 and whilst the Tokina lens did't match the two DA* lenses it was "was ok" at optimum aperture and shutter speeds in ideal lighting, in fact in some of those it was impressive.

Regarding wether the Sigma would give me a big advantage over the Tokina in the field ; Based on critical comparison (on screen and printed,cropped enlargements) that I undertook, sample images from the Sigma, in no way overshadowed the Tokina and hence I sought a second opinion;
Johns opinon was that the Sigma was crisper and has better overall feel, adding that he had also used the Tokina 400mm and although was good, it's not as good as the Sigma, underlining that to be fair, we'd expect that as the Sigma is considerably more expensive.

I eventually decided the extra expense for the Sigma was not justifiable in this case

As regards using older zooms and wide angles, I also on occasions, still use a very "long in the tooth" Pentax 28 - 105 which at the longer end is still acceotabke particularly for BW landscapes so like everyone else I have some "keepers" I am not eager to part with

I think John Riley's comment on FOV in this topic thread is highly relevant to the discussion (conventional vs telecentric lenses) and also might explain the reason why conventional wide angles are considered by the lens experts to be more prone to issues when used on DSLRs ; which technically might in turn relate to the much wider convergence angle of rays passing through the more pronounced lens curvatures of the conventional wide angles.

Conversely it might also be why the flat field correction on macro lenses lessens the effect of covergence angles when using a conventional macro lens on a DSLR.

The narrower convergence angle on telephoto is considered to be the main advantage when using conventional telephotos on DSLRs and these aspects all have associated relevance to Johns comment on FOV and only using the centre of the image.

What is also interesting is to consider the issue of FOV, convergence angles when using a conventional lens on FF digital; the coventional lenses might be less useful in FF as the effect of the convergence angle will could be more acute at the edge of the enlarged FOV.

Finally, if a pro photographer has a selection of Zooms / Primes suited to his/ her work then it would be unlikely that a non- ideal lens would be chosen over a state of the art telecentric lens when critical quality is necessary; it would introduce some degree of unwanted degradationI would think and could become somewhat more conspicuous when cropping or enlarging ?
(other peoples wisdom would be appreciated)

Finally I close by mentioning the different lens coating technology of new lenses vs older lenses which is very interesting, moreso if you images are commisioned or being provided for a customer, ask any wedding photographer ?

This is another topic for another time, I think

Anyway, thanks very much for all contributions which, whilst always providing a fresh view also provide a shared learning experience for all and so far this topic has provided such learning for me.

Regards

Daronl

Whilst not something that I would be interested in at this time it is top class artistry , very skilful indeed and a legitimate branch of photographic imagery

I like it and admire it very much

I thought I would start up this topic because increasingly I am seeing dialogue on Pentax User, regarding using older conventional Film lenses on Digital Cameras.

It seem a "given" in some posts that traditional older film lenses can be used on a digital DSLR without any issues, which is simply not correct and in the case of wide angle lenses it is arguably a "no,no" regardless of the quality of the wide angle film lens being mounted on a DSLR.

It must be said however, to avoid distracting commentary that their will be exceptions but they are very, very rare exceptions

There is a link below to a very good technical paper that might be useful to read in order to expand the subject a little.

It is a subject I have had a great interest in for several years, so much so that having thoroughly studied the science / optical engineering and technical aspects, and carried out controlled tests using numerous top drawer film lenses on digital cameras (many times) I have adopted a general rule.

1. We should avoid using wide angle film lenses (non telecentric) on digital cameras but can use some top quality long telephoto film lenses

Based on test images the conclusion regarding Digital Cameras can be further refined ;

a. Only dedicated telecentric (digital) lenses should be used below 150mm and particularly in the wide angle range (shorter than 50mm) non-telecentric conventional (film lenses) are not usable if a good digital photo is the requirement ( when isn’t it).

b. In the case of longer focal length particularly above 200mm non-telecentric conventional (film lenses) can be useful and at the extreme telephoto lengths the problems of colour fringing , CA and poor colour rendition that arise in the wide angle range can diminish to negligible proportions

The basic differences in conventional and telecentric lenses:
Modern digital lenses transport parallel light rays in a collimated form from the front element to the sensor
Conventional film lenses (as a rule) transport light rays such that they converge on to the film plane
However not all older lenses were “non-telecentric)

Preamble from the Technical Document “linked below; High Resolution Image Sensors and Lens Performance-

The recent development of high quality multi-megapixel image sensors has revolutionized every aspect of image capture, processing and display. However, for many photographers, both amateur and professional, the transition from silver halide film to silicon-based sensor arrays has not been entirely seamless.

One area where the differences between film-based and digital photography have been especially confusing is with regard to lens performance. After all, if I have a lens that gave me great images on my film SLR, it should work even better on my digital SLR, right?

Not necessarily. This article attempts to clarify some of the lens design and image sensor design issues that can be critical for digital camera performance.

Hopefully after reading this, you will be able to better understand why some lenses work better with digital cameras and what to look for in a digital camera lens.

See the following link which explains High Resolution Image Sensors and Lens Performance in more detail http://www.theodoropoulos.info/attachments/076_ACSI_tech_note_Telecentric_lenses...

All comments would be welcomed
Regards

What is the year of original purchase ?

I can' t see such a lens listed by Sigma; is it a K 3 compatible mount and does it work on a cropped sensor and Full frame.

Regards