Using Film camera lenses?

[Antlershed]

What are the pros/cons to using an older lens designed for a film camera on a DSLR? I'm trying to acquire another lense, and just trying to figure it all out. Thanks.

[Elkman]

There are a few rules, you can read about below.
I use my 17 year old 80-200 2.8 Nikon on my D200, but because of the DX frame format, it becomes a 120-300mm 2.8
But works just like on my Film body.

http://www.news.com/Digital-SLRs-bring-lens-quandary/2100-1041_3-6068289.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234062

[popeshawnpaul]

I've found that most work very well.  The 3rd party brands sometimes have issues.  I would highly recommend one do a search on dpreview.com or fredmiranda.com for your lens and compatability with your lens.  There have been a few minor problems.  Some, lose functionality in their autofocus.  But for the most part, dslr's are made for the film lenses.  As Elkman pointed out, the 1.6x frame factor you get with the new smaller digital sensors gets you a lot of lens for your money if you are shooting wildlife with telephotos.  There are problems with wide angle lenses, but they have fixed that with affordable lenses down to 17mm now.  I actually found that the autofocus worked much faster on my old Tokina lens and my new 40D than it ever did on a canon film camera.  Additionally, this lens was often soft at the edges with a film camera that used the whole lens.  Now that my dslr uses less of the lens because of this 1.6x crop factor, the edges of my photos on this lens are much sharper than they ever were with film cameras.  The dslr's just use more of the center sweet spot of the lens.

shawn

[Antlershed]

Thanks for the info. Something just occured to me though....none of the old lenses would have VR, correct?

[Elkman]

Canon first commercially available Image stabilized lens was introduced in 1995.

[Antlershed]

How about for Nikons? I'm just trying to find an affordable lense for my D80. 200mm just isn't enough for what I would like to do. 

[Elkman]

How much do you want to spend?
http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

[Elkman]

Here's where you can find out what lens you have will work.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

[popeshawnpaul]

Antlershed, you don't have a ton of Nikon brand choices.  The most popular option would be the 80-400 f4.5-f.6.  However, the reviews show it produces average quality photos.  The 300mm f4 produces nice sharp photos, but here is no VR...  Other than that, you are getting limited on "affordable" lens options from Nikon.  You could go with a 3rd party lens but i don't like that option unless you have to. 

[boneaddict]

Always good stuff guys.
I appreciate having you guys around.

[bearbait]

I have good results with my 75-300 Nikor (113-450 on D40x), but it is not VR and I loose autofocus.  Not sure I want to spend the bucks on a 70-300 VR just to get autofocus, as I shoot almost everything on a tripod anyhow.
You pays your money and makes your choices......

[Antlershed]

I'm curious as to why the 70-300mm lense with VR is around $500 and the 80-400mm is $1700? 

[popeshawnpaul]

It's the 100 extra mm's of reach.  Canon does the same with their lenses.  The difference between 300mm and 400mm is quite a bit.  The reviews indicate that neither provide exceptional quality.  Their value is in their versatility.  I'll take an un-versatile sharp lens over a versatile soft lens any day of the week.  I'm not a fan of super zoom lenses as you can tell.  I haven't shot with these two lenses but have read several reviews on these lenses.  A good versatile zoom with super quality is the 200-400mm F4.

Shawn

[boneaddict]

How muh does that run Shawn...know off the top of your head?  I don't expect you to look it up.

[Elkman]

$5K
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300488-USA/Nikon_2146_200_400mm_f_4_G_AFS_ED_IF.html