# Noob question about film lens on digital SLR



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

I get confused on this issue.

I have a Nikon D50 camera, and I'm using the cheap 28-80 mm lens from my old Nikon film camera. 

I want a wider angle lens, but I'm confused on how the 28-80 film lens equates to digital. Is it equivalent to 42-120 mm? Meaning my old film lens is more like a telephoto? 

Or does it equate to 18-55 mm, meaning it's already a bit of a wide angle lens?


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

I know for my Canon Rebel XT the conversion is focal length * 1.6, if that's true for your Nikon and I think it is your first numbers were right.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

vexed said:


> I know for my Canon Rebel XT the conversion is focal length * 1.6, if that's true for your Nikon and I think it is your first numbers were right.


So maybe I got confused, thinking the lens are different.

There's no difference between a film and digital lens right? My old 28-80 mm is the same focal length as a "Digital SLR lens" that's 28-80?


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Yes and no. The lens is the same angle of view but the effect in your dSLR is as you suggest (1.5x for the D50). The smaller sensor takes a "crop" of the 35 mm image circle and blows it up (by 1.5x in your case). Lenses continue to be sold by the correct focal length indication so even Nikon DX lenses will show this 1.5x factor on your camera.

Look at it this way, your lenses just got "longer" and good long glass is much more expensive than good short glass. There are a bunch of good choices in the 12-24 to 10-20 mm zoom range (most are DX, meaning they won't fill a 35 mm camera's frame). I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 and it rocks (except for being a little heavy). Even Nikon's super-expensive 12-24 Nikkor lens (double my Tokina's price, or any other 3rd party super-wide zoom) is 1/3rd or less the price of a similar-quality 300+ mm telephoto lens.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Penforhire said:


> Yes and no. The lens is the same angle of view but the effect in your dSLR is as you suggest (1.5x for the D50). The smaller sensor takes a "crop" of the 35 mm image circle and blows it up (by 1.5x in your case). Lenses continue to be sold by the correct focal length indication so even Nikon DX lenses will show this 1.5x factor on your camera.
> 
> Look at it this way, your lenses just got "longer" and good long glass is much more expensive than good short glass. There are a bunch of good choices in the 12-24 to 10-20 mm zoom range (most are DX, meaning they won't fill a 35 mm camera's frame). I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 and it rocks (except for being a little heavy). Even Nikon's super-expensive 12-24 Nikkor lens (double my Tokina's price, or any other 3rd party super-wide zoom) is 1/3rd or less the price of a similar-quality 300+ mm telephoto lens.


Very cool thanks, I got it now. :thumbup: I was worried a 12-24 wide wouldn't be wide enough.

I'll have to decide between that $500 Tokina 12-24 mm wide, or the $800 Nikon 18-200 mm VR. It would be nice to not have to swap lenses.

I read somewhere that you don't need to buy expensive f/2.8 telephotos for digital, cause of digital's faster ISOs. I don't have any leftover telephotos anyway from my film camera.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> I read somewhere that you don't need to buy expensive f/2.8 telephotos for digital, cause of digital's faster ISOs.


Good sharp glass is good sharp glass, no matter what the medium of image capture. Higher ISO values introduce noise into the image, digital's equivalent to film grain which becomes more evident in higher ISO films. Generally speaking, it is desirable to use the lowest ISO value that will result in a suitable shutter speed for a given exposure.

Don't overlook the used market for lenses. I couldn't justify spending $1500 for a 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR, so I bought a used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for $900. It's a sweet lens.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> Very cool thanks, I got it now. :thumbup: I was worried a 12-24 wide wouldn't be wide enough.
> 
> I'll have to decide between that $500 Tokina 12-24 mm wide, or the $800 Nikon 18-200 mm VR. It would be nice to not have to swap lenses.
> 
> I read somewhere that you don't need to buy expensive f/2.8 telephotos for digital, cause of digital's faster ISOs. I don't have any leftover telephotos anyway from my film camera.


Dawg90:
I am currently using a Nikon D200 + 18-200mm VRII combo with great results. I've been shooting Nikon 35mm since 1970 and purchased a Coolpix 950 in 1998. I went to DSLR with a D70 in late 2004 and there is a steep learning curve from film SLRs to DSLRs. If you are going to own one lens, the 18-200 VRII is a great choice. If you can, wait because the current prices are on the verge of gouging because of the lens' popularity and scarcity.

I recommend you check out the *www.nikonians.org* forums. It is a site dedicated to Nikon and there are specific forums for Nikkor lenses and various Nikon camera bodies.:thumbup:

Hope this helps....JL


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

No kidding about the film-to-digital learning curve! I got allergic to Dektol in the darkroom so digital was a blessing for me.

On the topic of noise, when you get to Photoshop or similar post-processing definitely check out noise reduction software (e.g. Noise Ninja or Neat Image). NN gives me at least a full stop of improvement using my D70s. I can make an ISO 400 image look as good, to my eye, as an unaltered ISO 200 image. I hate pushing much past ISO 400 precisely because of noise, which varies considerably by camera model (some leading edge dSLR's look great at ISO 800).


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

Cliff3 said:


> Don't overlook the used market for lenses. I couldn't justify spending $1500 for a 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR, so I bought a used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for $900. It's a sweet lens.


:eeps: The buy and sell forum at Fredmiranda.com always has people selling equipment.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 18, 2004)

*DPReview.com*

Check out www.dpreview.com. Go to Forums for discussions of lenses, flashes, or any other photo related topic.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

SRFast said:


> Dawg90:
> I am currently using a Nikon D200 + 18-200mm VRII combo with great results. I've been shooting Nikon 35mm since 1970 and purchased a Coolpix 950 in 1998. I went to DSLR with a D70 in late 2004 and there is a steep learning curve from film SLRs to DSLRs. If you are going to own one lens, the 18-200 VRII is a great choice. If you can, wait because the current prices are on the verge of gouging because of the lens' popularity and scarcity.
> 
> I recommend you check out the *www.nikonians.org* forums. It is a site dedicated to Nikon and there are specific forums for Nikkor lenses and various Nikon camera bodies.:thumbup:
> ...


Thanks guys, i ordered the Nikon 18-200 mm VR lens from Ritz. I figure if I ever learn how to shoot, it'll be nice to have a good lens.


----------



## Spectre (Aug 1, 2002)

Did you get the lens yet? I'm wondering how long the wait really is. Some dealers are just putting them straight on eBay and getting a $200+ premium. :yikes:


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Spectre said:


> Did you get the lens yet? I'm wondering how long the wait really is. Some dealers are just putting them straight on eBay and getting a $200+ premium. :yikes:


No, Ritz still says it's still on backorder - it's been about 6 weeks.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> I get confused on this issue.
> 
> I have a Nikon D50 camera, and I'm using the cheap 28-80 mm lens from my old Nikon film camera.
> 
> ...


The Nikon sensor is slightly bigger than the Canon Rebel, both are smaller than the 35mm film. You multiply the focal length of the Nikon by 1.5 to get equivalent.


----------



## Spectre (Aug 1, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> No, Ritz still says it's still on backorder - it's been about 6 weeks.


Sigh. I guess I'm not going to get mine in time for Oshkosh. :bawling: I refuse to pay ripoff prices.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Spectre said:


> Sigh. I guess I'm not going to get mine in time for Oshkosh. :bawling: I refuse to pay ripoff prices.


Most are going for over $1K on ebay :thumbdwn: 

Actually, a lot of the new DX VR lenses are out of stock everywhere. Seems like Nikon underestimated the demand.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Test_Engineer said:


> Most are going for over $1K on ebay :thumbdwn:
> 
> Actually, a lot of the new DX VR lenses are out of stock everywhere. Seems like Nikon underestimated the demand.


Ritz is charging only $750, but I ordered 6 weeks ago and no change in status yet.


----------

