The end of legacy lenses???

[dahod]

Just wondering if the current evolution of camera systems with in-camera software image manipulation is going to result in throw-away lenses? Are the new lenses less optically correct?

I just read some posts between users excited about finding adapters that let them use some favourite lenses from bygone film days - old but special and it got me wondering if that will even be possible in the years to come. Increasingly the lens is becoming part of the camera system and will lenses in the future even work on other cameras? We used to spend thousands on lenses knowing the optical qualities of the lens itself.

I could be wrong and correct me if I am, but the lens benchmarking now seems to be of the lens/camera system - the product of the sensor output and not the optical benchmarking of the lens alone. For example, I've been trying to find the optical testing of the Olympus mZuiko Pro lenses themselves but so far have been unable - maybe somebody can point me in the right direction. I'm still learning so any help would be apppreciated.

In the end, a lens that relies on it's camera software might have limited use in the future - not like the those special lenses we covet today. I read recently that photography is now a consumer electronic so maybe nobody cares.

I hope not.

 

[SpinOne]

Just wondering if the current evolution of camera systems with in-camera software image manipulation is going to result in throw-away lenses?

No.

Are the new lenses less optically correct?

No.

Some lenses use integrated software correction. In many cases, this does a better job than optical corrections, such as providing better distortion control with less impact on corner sharpness or IQ.

I just read some posts between users excited about finding adapters that let them use some favourite lenses from bygone film days...

Legacy (film) lenses are not really ideal for use with most digital cameras. The designs on the old lenses are not optimal for digital sensors, which work slightly differently than photosensitive film.

Older digital lens standards (like 4/3 lenses) usually work fine with adapters. They may have other disadvantages, such as slower AF, or greater weight.

Increasingly the lens is becoming part of the camera system and will lenses in the future even work on other cameras?

Probably. At least, no more or less than in the past.

Adapters seem to work fairly well. For example, the Canon lens adapters for Sony bodies reportedly does a good job. The connections can either be reverse engineered, or licensed from a manufacturer, or applied in post.

As long as someone makes an adapter, today's lenses will work just fine.

For example, I've been trying to find the optical testing of the Olympus mZuiko Pro lenses themselves but so far have been unable...

That's because it makes no sense to test the lens on its own.

Testing an M4/3 lens without applying the software corrections will NOT give you an accurate idea of its performance. The software corrections are integral to the lens performance. Testing without that would be like removing the lens coatings from the front and rear lens element.

I see little reason to worry. A lens you buy today should be fully functional for a long, long, long time.

 

[nikon power]

One of the commandments for legacy lenses to last to eternity.

Thou shall covet legacy lenses to store them with silica gel packets.

 

[dougjgreen1]

Just wondering if the current evolution of camera systems with in-camera software image manipulation is going to result in throw-away lenses?

No.

Are the new lenses less optically correct?

No.

Not so straightforward. In many cases they are, particularly when comparing to the very best legacy optics. It quite true that the end result might be equal or better with the modern optic and software correction, but the question was optically correct, not end-result correct

Some lenses use integrated software correction. In many cases, this does a better job than optical corrections, such as providing better distortion control with less impact on corner sharpness or IQ.

I just read some posts between users excited about finding adapters that let them use some favourite lenses from bygone film days...

Legacy (film) lenses are not really ideal for use with most digital cameras. The designs on the old lenses are not optimal for digital sensors, which work slightly differently than photosensitive film.

This totally depends upon the lens. Really, telephotos and legacy macro lenses work just fine with digital sensors - it's only very retrofocus optics, particularly wide angles, that often cause issues with sensors because the light often hits the sensor at an acute angle, causing problems stemming from the fact that sensitivity to different colors (aka different frequency light waves) are often at different layers within the sensor.

Older digital lens standards (like 4/3 lenses) usually work fine with adapters. They may have other disadvantages, such as slower AF, or greater weight.

Increasingly the lens is becoming part of the camera system and will lenses in the future even work on other cameras?

Probably. At least, no more or less than in the past.

Adapters seem to work fairly well. For example, the Canon lens adapters for Sony bodies reportedly does a good job. The connections can either be reverse engineered, or licensed from a manufacturer, or applied in post.

As long as someone makes an adapter, today's lenses will work just fine.

For example, I've been trying to find the optical testing of the Olympus mZuiko Pro lenses themselves but so far have been unable...

That's because it makes no sense to test the lens on its own.

Testing an M4/3 lens without applying the software corrections will NOT give you an accurate idea of its performance. The software corrections are integral to the lens performance. Testing without that would be like removing the lens coatings from the front and rear lens element.

I see little reason to worry. A lens you buy today should be fully functional for a long, long, long time.

 

[BertIverson]

Just wondering if the current evolution of camera systems with in-camera software image manipulation is going to result in throw-away lenses? Are the new lenses less optically correct?

Probably less optically correct since SW in the camera does the correction (maybe even better than additional lens elements would)
Since this lens correction can be applied in PP, probably no need to toss the lens if adapted to a different camera. I believe RAW is corrected during PP even when the lens is on the native camera.

Just my 0.02
Bert

 

[SpinOne]

Are the new lenses less optically correct?

No.

Not so straightforward. In many cases they are, particularly when comparing to the very best legacy optics. It quite true that the end result might be equal or better with the modern optic and software correction, but the question was optically correct, not end-result correct

OK then, let me rephrase my answer to the following:

It is pointless to ask if a software-corrected lens is "optically correct." It is, fundamentally, the wrong question to ask.

The proper question is: "If I spend a ludicrous amount of money on lenses, will I be able to use them in the future?" To which the answer is: "Well, no one really knows, but as long as adapters are available the answer should be yes."

For example, let's say Olympus decides tomorrow to shut down its entire imaging division. There's a decent chance that, as part of that process, they would sell and/or release the data required for a RAW developer to apply the appropriate software corrections for their lenses. If they don't, we already have most of the tools required to reverse engineer those corrections.

Of course, there are no guarantees. But I don't expect a lens you buy today to be obsolete in 3 years.

 

[dougjgreen1]

Are the new lenses less optically correct?

No.

Not so straightforward. In many cases they are, particularly when comparing to the very best legacy optics. It quite true that the end result might be equal or better with the modern optic and software correction, but the question was optically correct, not end-result correct

OK then, let me rephrase my answer to the following:

It is pointless to ask if a software-corrected lens is "optically correct." It is, fundamentally, the wrong question to ask.

No, that question is entirely appropriate if, like the OP, one is looking to use a lens in some application other than the system for which it was designed. It's entirely possible that the lens in such an application will have to be used without the software corrections - perhaps because those correction algorithms are not available, or not available under reasonable commercial terms. Many a superb legacy lens is presently being used on digital systems, with no software corrections at all. I believe that the OP was getting at exactly this issue - if the correction is only, or predominantly, in software, then it may be that the lens cannot be re-deployed in some other system with anywhere near the same facility as many legacy prime optics often are nowadays.

The proper question is: "If I spend a ludicrous amount of money on lenses, will I be able to use them in the future?" To which the answer is: "Well, no one really knows, but as long as adapters are available the answer should be yes."

For example, let's say Olympus decides tomorrow to shut down its entire imaging division. There's a decent chance that, as part of that process, they would sell and/or release the data required for a RAW developer to apply the appropriate software corrections for their lenses. If they don't, we already have most of the tools required to reverse engineer those corrections.

Of course, there are no guarantees. But I don't expect a lens you buy today to be obsolete in 3 years.

 

[foot]

I see little reason to worry. A lens you buy today should be fully functional for a long, long, long time.

Is that "digital time", cause you know digital time could be just a couple of years or so...

we know legacy lens performance and reliability because they have a long track record.

And there's a large selection of legacy lenses that perform very well on today's digital

cameras. And manual focusing works well, because it was important back then. None

of this "focus by wire"

How long do you think today's digital lenses will work? Take a look at their warranty

period

 

[SpinOne]

It is pointless to ask if a software-corrected lens is "optically correct." It is, fundamentally, the wrong question to ask.

No, that question is entirely appropriate if, like the OP, one is looking to use a lens in some application other than the system for which it was designed.

I already addressed that question, and pointed out that the correct question is "will I be able to use these lenses in the future?"

The answer, again, is "yes but no guarantees." There is no way to be sure that anyone will make an adapter, or backwards-compatible lens mount, for anything in the future.

In terms of software corrections, most are pretty straight-forward (CA, vignetting, distortion correction). There are people right now who use M4/3 lenses and bodies with RAW developers that don't utilize any software corrections or manufacturer's profiles. You can even roll your own right now in LR, and probably other RAW development software. Thus, it seems highly likely that such options will be available in the future.

Software corrections should not be an impediment to any future use. The real issue will be the availability of adapters.

 

[PalmettoFellow]

One of the commandments for legacy lenses to last to eternity.

Thou shall covet legacy lenses to store them with silica gel packets.

So it was written, so it shall be done.

 

[Sir Canon]

if aything they are getting even better optically! the digital things are just making them even better

 

[22codfish]

I purchased a K mount 28 mm f2.8 for $35 and 50 mm f2 for $20 for use with my Pentax K5.

All that I have to do is set the camera to manual focus and it asks me to enter the focal length. As I manual focus the camera's automatic focus system chimes in when I reach in focus. The auto-exposure system works with these lens, and both lens take SHARP photos.

I haven't used them recently because I've been using my digital weather-proof DA*16-50 mm lens in wet conditions. Why bother to pay big dollars for a DSLR system, if you can't use lens and camera in a little bit of rain or snow?

Also, for BIF, I've stuck with my auto-focus telephoto.

 

[PalmettoFellow]

I was an early adopter of 4/3 with the Olympus E1. E1 owners back then could get a free OM lens adapter from Olympus. This let me use legacy manual lenses with my E1...but I didn't really care too much for that, I owned a few OM lenses.

Not being able to auto focus or even auto aperture was rather...LEGACY IMHO. Granted, the lenses didn't AF at all, so this was no fault of the adapter.

Any successful adapter made for today's lenses would need to have perfect AF and Aperture control communications with the body. If this is met, then that's over 90% of the equation right there. The digital stuff like distortion and vignetting control is not nearly as important. All of that can be done in Post Processing.

 

[22codfish]

I should have included that the Pentax shake reduction (SR or VR) system still works for legacy lens because this system is in the camera; not in the lens like Canon and Nikon shake reduction systems.

 

[meland]

I should have included that the Pentax shake reduction (SR or VR) system still works for legacy lens because this system is in the camera; not in the lens like Canon and Nikon shake reduction systems.

 

[22codfish]

I didn't know, but guessed that when the Pentax K5 camera asked me to choose and input the focal length it was to complete the auto-focus information. I never considered the input was required for the shake reduction system.

 

[meland]

Some current lenses only work at all because of software correction. In particular lenses for certain superzoom cameras. This becomes apparent if you try and do a RAW conversion using a converter that does not support the lens correction - for example you can find that the wide angle of the zoom actually produces circular images with no straight lines visible anywhere.

Now, as far as I know, no interchangeable lenses from any manufacturer yet use software correction to this degree but perhaps it's only a question of time as they try and make smaller lenses with wider zoom ranges?

So the OP is probably safe for the time being but it's certainly something to be aware of in that some future lenses may only work on specific bodies, or perhaps with that manufacturer's specific conversion software. I don't think we can rely on universal converters like Lightroom, Capture One etc. to guarantee to support such systems.

 

[dahod]

Thanks dougjgreen1 - that's where I was headed with this. As correction moves to the camera, future users will have no guarantee they can use their old lenses.

A lot of people in today's consumer electronic world are okay with that - they point to the ever-evolving quality of the new systems and wonder why anyone would ever want to use the "old" stuff anyway.

 

[SpinOne]

I see little reason to worry. A lens you buy today should be fully functional for a long, long, long time.

Is that "digital time"?

Nope.

we know legacy lens performance and reliability because they have a long track record.

If you say so... Seems like there's some pitfalls there.

And manual focusing works well, because it was important back then. None of this "focus by wire"

As long as the lens has power, focus-by-wire should work. FYI, the focusing on newer lenses is outstanding, especially the Oly lenses with the "clutch MF" mechanism.

How long do you think today's digital lenses will work? Take a look at their warranty period

The what now?

Warranty periods haven't changed much over the years, and don't indicate the longevity or build quality of a lens.

 

[dahod]

Thanks for the response and that was one of my questions. I haven't been able to find any testing to demonstrate the optical quality of the new lenses (Olympus Pro in my case) by themselves. If you know of some optical bench testing could you let me know please?

Dave