Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

speaking of 35mm I bought a used Nikkor 35mm 1.8g yesterday and after trying it out I noticed pronounced fringing on either side of the focal plane, always green beyond it and magenta in front. Could this be some kind of coating on the lens from poor cleaning by the previous owner? I can take it back to the store and get a refund within 3 months but I thought I'd see if anyone here knew what's causing it first. Example (bet you can't guess what body I have) [img]http://puu.sh/4zarQ.jpg[/img]

All I need now is a 20mm that's below 50 euro, which will probably be impossible.

Don't bother with the Minolta MD lens. Getting adapters for that money is better.

[QUOTE=Winstonn;42293923]speaking of 35mm I bought a used Nikkor 35mm 1.8g yesterday and after trying it out I noticed pronounced fringing on either side of the focal plane, always green beyond it and magenta in front. Could this be some kind of coating on the lens from poor cleaning by the previous owner? I can take it back to the store and get a refund within 3 months but I thought I'd see if anyone here knew what's causing it first. Example (bet you can't guess what body I have) [img]http://puu.sh/4zarQ.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] looks like the previous owner didn't wipe the lens enough after using it in highly saturated environments (like outside on sunny days, especially near lots of green grass and colourful flowers)

[QUOTE=Winstonn;42293923]speaking of 35mm I bought a used Nikkor 35mm 1.8g yesterday and after trying it out I noticed pronounced fringing on either side of the focal plane, always green beyond it and magenta in front. Could this be some kind of coating on the lens from poor cleaning by the previous owner? I can take it back to the store and get a refund within 3 months but I thought I'd see if anyone here knew what's causing it first. Example (bet you can't guess what body I have) [img]http://puu.sh/4zarQ.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] [url]http://photographylife.com/what-is-chromatic-aberration[/url] Terms aren't entirely correct but it illustrates the point

[QUOTE=Winstonn;42293923]speaking of 35mm I bought a used Nikkor 35mm 1.8g yesterday and after trying it out I noticed pronounced fringing on either side of the focal plane, always green beyond it and magenta in front. Could this be some kind of coating on the lens from poor cleaning by the previous owner? I can take it back to the store and get a refund within 3 months but I thought I'd see if anyone here knew what's causing it first. Example (bet you can't guess what body I have) [img]http://puu.sh/4zarQ.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] It's a characteristic of this lens. It just has a lot of Chromatic Abreviation. Fixed by 1 button click in Photoshop Lightroom.

for real though, from looking about, there's quite a few people complaining about that lens having a lot of chromatic aberration when wide open

[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;42293953]All I need now is a 20mm that's below 50 euro, which will probably be impossible.[/QUOTE] Full frame primes below 20mm are expensive, and not the best option for APS-C. I had a canon FD 17mm f4 (sold at the time for around $400) and my Sony 16mm 2.8 pancake was a better performer, and it was known as the worst lens in the Nex lineup. At 18mm your kit lens is going to be better on APS-C than most adapted primes (especially when you factor price), so I wouldn't bother. I would only get an APS-C wide angle zoom, or possibly the Samyang 14mm 2.8 (full frame lens, but cheap and performs decently on APS-C). Samyang also have a 16mm f2 which is great, and are rumored to be working on a 10mm f2.8. If wide primes are your thing look into Samyang, otherwise I wouldn't bother tracking down old legacy glass because it won't be much better than your kit lens in most cases [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Uber|nooB;42294220]for real though, from looking about, there's quite a few people complaining about that lens having a lot of chromatic aberration when wide open[/QUOTE] Especially considering almost all lenses have it. The widest aperture lenses I can think of without it would be that new Leica 50mm f2 APO, and the voigtlander lanthar 125mm 2.5 APO. Those are true apochromatic lenses, not many of those around.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;42294196][url]http://photographylife.com/what-is-chromatic-aberration[/url] Terms aren't entirely correct but it illustrates the point[/QUOTE] Are you sure there should be that much right in the center of the frame? I've never seen chromatic aberration right in the middle of a photograph even when using the crappiest lenses on the planet. This is the uncropped image [t]http://puu.sh/4zcjX.jpg[/t]

Yes because you are shooting at f/1.8 which is the culprit. It's everywhere in the bokeh, wherever in the image that might be.

I see. This is my first lens with a wider aperture, prior to this f3.5 is the widest I've had the use of so I was always under the impression that chromatic aberration only occurred at the extreme edges of the frame. defringe clickedy click

[QUOTE=Winstonn;42294809]I see. This is my first lens with a wider aperture, prior to this f3.5 is the widest I've had the use of so I was always under the impression that chromatic aberration only occurred at the extreme edges of the frame. defringe clickedy click[/QUOTE] well what you are seeing is lateral chromatic abberations, not just purple fringing. however both occur at wider apertures. VERY few lenses with wide apertures don't have lateral chromatic abberations. if you are interested in seeing what it looks like, search for some samples of the Voigtlander Lanthar 125mm, imo it looks very unusual to have the color shift be completely absent purple fringing is when high contrast areas have purple around them and are supposed to be in focus, where as lateral fringing (purple in foreground and green in background) happens only in out of focus areas. either can be treated in lightroom, and mostly only presents a problem if you are shooting film (which you have a DX lens, so you won't be using it on film) because you can't remove it. stopping down will help get rid of both as well, but your example doesn't show much purple fringing which is good. your example looks bad because it is black against a white background, on most subjects without this much contrast you won't notice fringing this bad.

So from what I've heard, the sharpest, best, least distorted images you'll get from a zoom lens is to stop it down to f/5.6-f/11 and zoom into the middle of the zoom range? Is this generally correct?

[QUOTE=garychencool;42295957]So from what I've heard, the sharpest, best, least distorted images you'll get from a zoom lens is to stop it down to f/5.6-f/11 and zoom into the middle of the zoom range? Is this generally correct?[/QUOTE] I always seem to get the sharpest results at f/8 As for least distorted, probably the midpoint of your zoom range as you say.

[QUOTE=frag4life;42294200]It's a characteristic of this lens. It just has a lot of Chromatic Abreviation. Fixed by 1 button click in Photoshop Lightroom.[/QUOTE] That only works against hard edges.

[QUOTE=garychencool;42295957]So from what I've heard, the sharpest, best, least distorted images you'll get from a zoom lens is to stop it down to f/5.6-f/11 and zoom into the middle of the zoom range? Is this generally correct?[/QUOTE] Least distorted will be in the middle, sharpest will be closer to the wide end (for an 18-55mm the best range will be 24-35). Sharpest apertures for the center are about f5.6-8 for every lens and f8-11 for overall sharpness. Typically the long end is where most all zooms are their worst. And far as the best images, it just depends on what range you like using. Use the focal length that fits the job the best, a zoom isn't for trying to make the sharpest or least distorted images, that's what a prime is for

[QUOTE=Trogdon;42296747]Least distorted will be in the middle, sharpest will be closer to the wide end (for an 18-55mm the best range will be 24-35). Sharpest apertures for the center are about f5.6-8 for every lens and f8-11 for overall sharpness. Typically the long end is where most all zooms are their worst. And far as the best images, it just depends on what range you like using. Use the focal length that fits the job the best, a zoom isn't for trying to make the sharpest or least distorted images, that's what a prime is for[/QUOTE] Ok, I just wanted to double check. I just wanted to know where the best performing images will be at on a zoom if I was stuck with it. I'll be using the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 a lot anyways. Anyone know where the sharpest images start and end?

i didn't realise how big and pretty a 82mm front element actually is and now i'm scared of scratching it not because it'll make my photos noticeably worse but because it'll look bad

[QUOTE=garychencool;42296895]Ok, I just wanted to double check. I just wanted to know where the best performing images will be at on a zoom if I was stuck with it. I'll be using the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 a lot anyways. Anyone know where the sharpest images start and end?[/QUOTE] I'm guessing that it will be 28-135, either way the differences won't be huge, performance at 200mm should be the only place where it is noticeably worse if at all

[QUOTE=Eltro102;42296904]i didn't realise how big and pretty a 82mm front element actually is and now i'm scared of scratching it not because it'll make my photos noticeably worse but because it'll look bad[/QUOTE] Put a UV protector on it?

[QUOTE=garychencool;42296946]Put a UV protector on it?[/QUOTE] i will, all the nice non ghosting ones seem well expensive though

I just use the Hoya filters that are cheap, I can see why they are so cheap. I can see these random streak mark on the filter when I first got it, air bubbles in the actual filter (although it was on the side and very small so I don't think it was really that bad). I feel like I should get a higher quality ones from Germany that cost over $100, then again, kit lens.

Just picked up the 28mm Sigma wide angle, now to obtain an adapter. [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/57350278@N06/9938127385/][img]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2836/9938127385_e4cea46acc_z.jpg[/img][/url] Hope I get to pick up that 35mm Zuiko real soon.

What's a reasonably cheap way to block out light like an ND filter? Looking to be able to use exposures of maybe 10, 20 or 30 seconds even on a bright day, but ND filters seem pretty expensive so I wondered if anyone knew any low-cost methods, like maybe a cheap square filter that you just tape onto your lens or something. [editline]fasd[/editline] Also, my 35mm 1.8g still back-focuses slightly on my D7000 even though I have the AF Fine Tune set to -20, the lowest value there is :(

[QUOTE=Winstonn;42313622]What's a reasonably cheap way to block out light like an ND filter? Looking to be able to use exposures of maybe 10, 20 or 30 seconds even on a bright day, but ND filters seem pretty expensive so I wondered if anyone knew any low-cost methods, like maybe a cheap square filter that you just tape onto your lens or something. [editline]fasd[/editline] Also, my 35mm 1.8g still back-focuses slightly on my D7000 even though I have the AF Fine Tune set to -20, the lowest value there is :([/QUOTE] welding glass?

My local pound shop has film in stock again. Yay

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;42313709]welding glass?[/QUOTE] Welding glass will block 10 stops typically, and there are a lot of guides as how to use them This is a guide I found that seems pretty decent [url]http://www.diyphotography.net/use-welding-glass-as-10-stops-nd-filter[/url]

You might get this green tint in your images with welding glass

[QUOTE=garychencool;42316494]You might get this green tint in your images with welding glass[/QUOTE] this is what custom white balance was designed for

I ordered a "shade 8" one for £1.20 on ebay green should be easy to fix up in Lightroom with some white balance and curves