Where does older glass start to break down?

[Timmyjoe]

I've got a bevy of really nice Nikkor MF prime glass, non-AI (that have all been AI'd) and AIS that I love using on my film cameras, my D700 and a Df.

Am considering going with a higher MP digital Nikon SLR, but am wondering if any folks here have experience with how this older glass holds up when you start to get to 20MP, 30MP and even 45MP (new D850) sensors? Does the image quality really start to break down?

Any and all input is appreciated.

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Mudman]

Usually wide open and in the corners is where you see it first

 

[Gregm61]

Film has tolerances that cover up certain lens issues the digital world definitely will expose if those older optics have anything to expose.

One I have run into using certain Leica M lenses is focus shift. If you focus using live view you'll not really notice it as focusing directly off the live image you can visually see as the picture goes into and out of focus, but when I use the rangefinder (and when a DSLR user uses the optical finder), you may be in perfect focus with the lens wide open on the image screen as you view in the finder, but stopped down 2 or three stops, the focus could shift slightly off the plane of the sensor, costing you resolution.

Focus shift seems to be something that film-based material covers up much more than modern digital sensors. No idea how much, if any, manual focus Nikkors suffer from it, but I'd be shocked if none of them exhibited it to some extent.

 

[Steve M.]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "break down". Older lenses, especially the lenses you mentioned, have far more pleasing IQ to me than the newer lenses with all their multi coatings, which sometimes give harsh contrast. I am not happy w/ the bokeh on new lenses either, and most people would agree that the H Nikkor 50 2 is probably the best 50 lens Nikon ever made (and one of the best 50's, period). If you mean a loss of resolution when making large prints, that may be where the newer glass shows improvement, but I think it's not worth it for the loss of IQ.

 

[johannielscom]

I don't buy it that film covers focus shift. Never heard of that before and cannot imagine how it would work. What is probably meant here is that the lenses designed for film maybe had a bit more leeway to cover film induced flatness variables etc. Which should be a good thing with regards to sharpness on a sensor.

But, the issue is moot if you steer away from a DSLR altogether and start shooting an EVIL camera. Then that possible focus shift does not matter at all anymore. The EVF will allow you to focus directly on the sensor and nail the focus every time.

As a result your image indeed might degrade at the corners but the focus anywhere else will be much better than it ever was with film or a DSLR.

 

[View Range]

It really depends on the lens. I use Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AIS and 105 f1.8 AIS lenses on my Nikon D810 regularly. The lenses perform excellently at all apertures. I have a Nikkor 135mm f2.0 AIS; it shows alarming chromatic aberration even on my old Nikon D2x and is relegated to the shelf. A lens I really love is the Nikkor 50 to 300mm f4.5 ED zoom. It performs very well on my Nikon D810, but is just too awkward to use regularly. When I want the longer focal lengths, I am working too quickly to use manual focus. I have also used the old two part 600mm f5.6 Nikkor on my D2x. (You have to use exposure compensation reset for each aperture change because there is no meter coupling.) The results were unacceptable. Chromatic aberration is severe.

 

[Highway 61]

I have used the following lenses of mine :

- Nikkor Ai 28mm f/2.8
- Nikkor Ai-S 28mm f/2.8
- Nikkor Ai 28mm f/2
- Nikkor Ai-S 35mm f/2
- Nikkor Ai 50mm f/2
- Micro-Nikkor Ai-S 55mm f/2.8
- Nikkor Ai-S 85mm f/2
- Nikkor K / Ai converted 85mm f/1.8
- Nikkor Ai-S 105mm f/2.5
- Nikkor Ai 135mm f/2.8
- Nikkor Ai-S 180mm f/2.8 ED

On the following bodies I used to own :

- Nikon D200 (APS-C 10MP)
- Nikon D700 (FF 12MP)
- Nikon D610 (FF 24MP)

With all the lenses mentioned above, the FF 24MP sensor of the D610 always provided the best images, with better dynamics, more resolution (of course), less blown out highlights, and without showing up any resolution problems due to the lenses. The gap between the D700 sensor and the 24MP sensor of the D610 (and D750) shows very quickly.

No problem with the D700 which I could think the lenses were responsible for. The limitations of the D700 are with its 12MP sensor.

The main problem with the D610 was its miserable finder when compared with the D700 fitted with the DK-17M eyepiece lupe.

You can use the DK-17M lupe on both the D700 and the Df.

With 16MP the Df sensor won't be a problem with your old Nikkors I'm certain. With the D700 it'll be a breeze.

The worse results I got with the same bunch of lenses were with the D200. 10MP concentrated on a 18x24 CCD sensor were clearly too much of a demand for the lenses resolving power.

I'd set the split at 36MP with MF lenses made in the 1970s and 1980s. So, no D800, D810, D850 et al.
Of course some exceptional and high resolving MF lenses like the Micro-Nikkors, the Ai-S 105mm f/2.5 and most of the ED and IF-ED lenses may become an exception to this general rule.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I'm very happy with the results on the D700 and Df, and yes, I use the DK-17M with both.

Just wondering if they would look pretty awful with the new D850, or even the D810.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ronald M]

My Ai lenses look fine overall on D800.

Film has curvature in the film gate except for one Contax that has a vacuum back.
It is in Hasselbad if the film sits too long and in large format holders, it may bulge.

Leica made older lenses to work someplace like the center bulge. Field curvature kept the edges decent. Then came digital. The engineers used the same focus distance as film and suddenly pics were out of focus. I knew immediately what was wrong. It took Leica a while. Then they started adjusting focus for digital.

Now Nikon. I fine tune the base a little so the green dot is correct when the lens is focused slightly behind the intended point. I do not have issues with edge being off perhaps because I use 5.6 and do not shoot test charts except for calibration. I can also move the screen with shims or the pro cameras have an adjustment screw inside the mirror box. That is always my first step. Later cameras seem better calibrated at the factory.

All Nikon lenses are different. non Ai 50 1.4 has serious curvature is a dog lens. Buy Ai 1.8 or 50 H 2.0. I have a 50 1.8 D that is a dog on one camera, I put on a newer one and it works fine. Can not explain. 105 2.5 is always good, but first version is soft up close.
28 2.8 with CRC and focusing to .7 meter is a brilliant lens as is 55 3.5.

Bottom line is I do not hesitate to use them. I also have all the new G lenses. Hard to tell them apart in my use.

 

[Huss]

I would rent a D850 or D810 from lensrentals.com and perform your own tests.
I have found that what some people find acceptable and/or great, may not agree with one's own opinion.

 

[x-ray]

I have a Df and D800 and use mainly AIs primes on the Df. I've shot them on the D800 as well with excellent results. If you're a pixel peeper and dig into the corners at 100% then you might not be as happy as with G lenses. However, like one of the other posters I love the look of the older glass. I own a nice array of G glass too but for the most part prefer my AIs glass.

 

[jsrockit]

This is all going to depend on how big you print and your viewing distance from the print.

 

[michaelwj]

It doesn't. The same lens is the same lens, and printed to the same size st the same viewing distance it will look the same.
The same defects are always present, only with a higher MP sensor you are sampling the lens at higher spatial frequencies so if you look at 100% you will see the original lens qualities better. If you like what you see is personal. If you are going to pixel peep you will likely be disappointed. If you continue doing what you've always done then you should see better tonal graduation and smoother transitions due to the higher sampling frequency.

Sometimes it's easier to think of it as a signal processing problem. If you imagine we have one cycle of a sine wave with some noise on it (coma, edge smearing, etc). A low MP back will sample it 10 to mes and you will be able to tell it is a sine wave. But where the gradient is steepest you will see big transitions. As you sample it more and more you see the sine wave better, the transitions become smoother, but you also start to see the noise on top too.

 

[sepiareverb]

Generally in the recycling bin, depending on how full the bin is.