Kind of disappointed.

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

Hey guys, Maybe you can confirm something for me. Most of you know about my Nikon FE. Well.. It came with standard 50mm 1.8 lens. Then I went out and found a vintage 50mm 1.4 lens cira 60's. I shot a roll with the 1.4 lens with circular polarizer on it, souped up film this sunday and the images weren't that clear? Do you think it was the circular polarizer that infered with image quality? Thats the first time I used it for general photography. I didn't use Cir Polar on 1.8 lens and I didn't have any issus shooting that lens but never use Cir Pol filter on that. So .. do you guys think that the 1.8 lens is a better lens overall?

ToddB

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 1, 2013

First, post examples of what's wrong with the images. It could be any number of things ranging from a dirty filter to a misaligned lens to user error. Circular polarizers in themselves are not problematic - I shot with one on my Hasselblad for years with no degradation of image quality. So it could be the specific example of a filter you have in your posession.

PtJudeRI · Jul 1, 2013

Were you shooting @1.4? I have trouble getting things tack sharp with my 1.8 every now and again, but thats my fault.... Were the images completely "soft"? What brand of filter?

BrianShaw · Jul 1, 2013

Also give some hints about your film, aperture, shutter speed, etc. I've never had such a compliant with my FE unless shooting at too slow of a shutter speed.

p.s. I would not use a circ polarizer as a general purpose filter - why are you doing that?

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

p.s. I would not use a circ polarizer as a general purpose filter - why are you doing that?

SP most of you know that you can turn it off and on by rotating it (obviously).. so I figured I would leave it on for a roll on the 1.4. I'll post a couple of pics tonight.

Todd

AgX · Jul 1, 2013

You can't turn off a single polarizer. All you can do is change its effect due to the polarisation angle of the incident polarized light.

BrianShaw · Jul 1, 2013

The question was, "why use a polarizer as a general purpose filter?" Are you trying to slow down the shutter speed by taking advantage of the filter factor, or some other reason??

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

Maybe the term "Turning off" was not the right way to discribe it. Sorry. I'll post a couple pics tonight and show you guys. It was the first time my confidence was shaken with this camera since I was shooting with it.

Todd

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

The question was, "why use a polarizer as a general purpose filter?" Are you trying to slow down the shutter speed by taking advantage of the filter factor, or some other reason??

I've been away filter use for sometime..Speed a property of CP filters?

BrianShaw · Jul 1, 2013

Every filter has a filter factor - loss of light. Loss of light leads to shorter shutter speeds if not compensated by larger aperture. Remember? I think all polarizers have a filter factor of 3 or 4... about 2 stops (from memory... so check me on that) loss of light almost automatically. That's why I'm asking about your shutter speed.

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

That's why I'm asking about your shutter speed.

It was bright sunny weekend. I shot some of people in University area. I like Bokah effect with my pics. So I think it was at 500 sp @ 2.8 or 1000 @ 1.4. The internal meter should have reflected that it had the filter on it.. right?

Todd

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

I'm really tempted to do roll with a test method. Between the two lenses.

Todd

wblynch · Jul 1, 2013

Bokeh is overrated.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 1, 2013

wblynch said:
Bokeh is overrated.

You can say that again. The term also often seems to be misused to mean "shallow DOF".

To the OP, is it possible that you simply didn't focus properly on what you wanted to be sharp? At f:1.4, there isn't much DOF.

Mackinaw · Jul 1, 2013

Take off the polarizer and shoot another roll with the 50/1.4. Use all apertures too. And don't expect a 1960's-vintage lens to be tack-sharp at F1.4. All fast, normal lenses from that era will show some spherical aberration, coma, etc, when shot wide-open. Not that that's always a bad thing. The "soft" look can make for some nice portraits.

Jim B.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 1, 2013

Mackinaw said:
Take off the polarizer and shoot another roll with the 50/1.4. Use all apertures too. And don't expect a 1960's-vintage lens to be tack-sharp at F1.4. All fast, normal lenses from that era will show some spherical aberration, coma, etc, when shot wide-open. Not that that's always a bad thing. The "soft" look can make for some nice portraits.

Jim B.

Yes, the pre AI 50/1.4 Nikkor-S wasn't very sharp at 1.4.

BrianShaw · Jul 1, 2013

ToddB said:
I'm really tempted to do roll with a test method. Between the two lenses.

Good idea!

Yes, the meter would compensate for the loss of light from a filter automatically. What the meter cannot do is automatically advise when you are using a shutter speed too slow for effective hand-holding (which does not appear to be the situation if you used 1/500 and 1/1000) or enough depth-of-field. Seriously consider what Emil asked in post 14 about your focusing... it is not easy when DOF is sliver thin.

waynecrider · Jul 1, 2013

Every camera lens will have some apertures better then others. I've had lenses that were sharper from either one end to another. I always test my lens by running a roll thru the apertures on a tripod in constant light. If I find uneven exposures when there should not be I know it could be a bad shutter speed.

Lamar · Jul 1, 2013

If i remember right this is a f/1.4 or f/2 shot with a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S pre-AI lens. No filter. You should be getting something like this. Edit: Forgot to mention; Ilford Delta 400 developed in XTOL. Nikon F Photomic FTn.

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

Posting two images from each lens

Hey guys,
which one do you think has clarity?

Todd

ToddB · Jul 1, 2013

The one on the left is from vintage 50mm Nikkor 1.4 and the other is the stock 50mm 1.8 lens that came with FE kit.

Todd

MattKing · Jul 1, 2013

ToddB said:
Hey guys,
which one do you think has clarity?

Todd

The photo on the left evidences higher contrast.

I would say, however, that the plane of sharpest focus is different between the two.

Nige · Jul 2, 2013

I agree with him ^

slight difference in view too, so handheld?

mesantacruz · Jul 3, 2013

Your second photo is front focused, so it's not fair to discuss the lens optics... as for the 50mm 1.4, it seems sharp to me, was your original post not about it's sharpness... perhaps you should photograph at 1.4 with and without the polarizer.

clayne · Jul 3, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
Yes, the pre AI 50/1.4 Nikkor-S wasn't very sharp at 1.4.

It wasn't really not sharp though - sure as hell isn't blurry. It's a fantastic lens with a signature look.

To the OP just take shots of normal subjects like humans and then I'm sure you'll feel fine with it.

Kind of disappointed.

ToddB

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

PtJudeRI

BrianShaw

ToddB

AgX

BrianShaw

ToddB

ToddB

BrianShaw

ToddB

ToddB

wblynch

E. von Hoegh

Mackinaw

E. von Hoegh

BrianShaw

waynecrider

Lamar

ToddB

Attachments

ToddB

MattKing

Moderator

Nige

mesantacruz

clayne

Kind of disappointed.

Membership Council

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency