Kind of disappointed.

[E. von Hoegh]

It wasn't really not sharp though - sure as @#!*% 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.

Correct, I should have been clearer. More of a veiled look.

 

[ToddB]

I forgot to mention this shoot was done with NO Polar filter as I did in my shoot that I was dissapointed with. I'll post a pic tonight to show you what I mean. So I think the Polar filter does effect the clarity.

ToddB

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I forgot to mention this shoot was done with NO Polar filter as I did in my shoot that I was dissapointed with. I'll post a pic tonight to show you what I mean. So I think the Polar filter does effect the clarity.

ToddB

It shouldn't.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

IF your polarizer is affecting your clarity, then it is the specific polarizing filter you have that is causing the problem, not polarizers in general.

 

[BrianShaw]

Todd... I remain a bit confused. Please forgive me if this seems offensive (it isn't intended to be) but you need to do two things: 1. explain more details of what, why and how you are shooting, and 2. bone up on some of the fundamentals. Otherwise it is really tough to figure out what is going on and help you out. It most likely is not the filter. Think about this - focus and flare. Are you handholding or tripod? Are you using a lens hood? What is your lighting? And, again, what was the intent of the polarizing filter in the first place? (The last, of course, may be a nonsensical question at this point but goes back to my first comment about explaining the details and intent.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Todd... I remain a bit confused. Please forgive me if this seems offensive (it isn't intended to be) but you need to do two things: 1. explain more details of what, why and how you are shooting, and 2. bone up on some of the fundamentals. Otherwise it is really tough to figure out what is going on and help you out. It most likely is not the filter. Think about this - focus and flare. Are you handholding or tripod? Are you using a lens hood? What is your lighting? And, again, what was the intent of the polarizing filter in the first place? (The last, of course, may be a nonsensical question at this point but goes back to my first comment about explaining the details and intent.

Brian's right. Unless you're working carefully and methodically - and taking notes - you're wasting your time. For instance, comparing lenses with the camera off the tripod is pointless. A filter, polarising or other, should not affect your results beyond the filter's intended effect.

When I compare lenses I set the camera (on a tripod) in front of a wall to which is taped some newsprint, be sure to get fine detail in the center and corners of the frame. The distance should be at least several feet for a 50mm lens. Focus carefully, use a magnifier if you have one. Use a cable release and (if possible) mirror lockup.

 

[ToddB]

No Problemm The vase shoot was done with tripod and shutter release cable. The shoot over the weekend was street shooting down by the University. The thing thats odd about weekend shoot it was the first time I left on the Polar filter on, I just find it ironic that it wasn't as sharp as before. Keeping in mind that I could have had an off day as far my focusing and stablity on my part. Since the FE is manual focus. What I've getting in advice is not to leave Polar filter on all the time and for every situation. I think it's always better to shoot with straight lens no filter in most cases. Oh.. I'm not offended at all. I believe we can alway learn.

 

[clayne]

Post one of the "blurry" shots and we'll tell you what the problem is.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I would not get hot and sweaty deciding over a 1.4 vs 1.8 lens; the difference is, to me, miniscule. More about the lens in a moment.

It is true that the quality of polarisers does vary. I have encountered Chinese-made polarisers with absolutely terrible optical quality, and these certainly would impact upon image quality, compromising lens peformance to boot.. On the other hand, there is no question at all on the quality of the long-established brands e.g. B+W, Hoya, Kenko, Tiffen...among. Besides the polariser and the nasty effect it can have on metering and the overall tone of a photograph (you do have to provide some compensation if you intentionally "flatten" the scen), have you had the lens itself professionally examined for alignment issues? This is what niggles me; a lousy filter stuck on the front of a lens will soften the image from any lens (second only to the problem of photographers shooting a 17mm lens at f32...). I agree though with the foregoing posts that you should give us something to examine; we can't provide insight or actually diagnose something we have not seen an example of!

 

[markaudacity]

Something that would help is if we could determine what exactly you mean by "clarity", as that is not a photographic term with a specific definition. Are you looking for more resolution, greater acutance/sharpness, more microcontrast, or higher overall contrast? All of those could be thought of as clarity, and they are all governed and affected by different factors.

The 50/1.4 shot you posted is representative of what that lens does, and most people would say it has a lot of snap/crispness to it. What film did you shoot that on? Film has the greatest effect on resolution and sharpness.

Have you calibrated your monitor? You might not be looking at your images through an unbiased window.

 

[ToddB]

Ok.. Here is a sample pic of my shoot last weekend. To me it looks a little soft and grainy. I use delta 100 35mm 68 degrees @ 12min.

Todd

 

[clayne]

Looks perfectly fine to me, friend.

 

[MattKing]

Is that a scan of a print, or a scan of a negative?

 

[ToddB]

Scan of negative..un-manipulated.

ToddB

 

[MattKing]

Scan of negative..un-manipulated.

ToddB

To me, it looks like you have missed the focus slightly - the plane of sharpest focus is near his sleeve, not on his face.

And in order to try to eliminate any problems with the scanning, try re-scanning the negative after rotating it 180 degrees (don't turn it over, turn it around).

The "graininess" may be scanning artifacts. Rotation of the negative may change the appearance of the scanning artifacts.

 

[lxdude]

most of you know that you can turn it off and on by rotating it (obviously)

The only way you can turn a polarizer off is by grasping the whole thing firmly and turning it counterclockwise until it comes off the lens.

 

[clayne]

I would agree the plain of focus is slightly off, definitely. However, I have no idea what film was used - but the grain isn't too excessive. It does look somewhat overdeveloped though.

 

[wblynch]

The lens is probably 1,000 times sharper than the scanner...

 

[Lamar]

Yep, I've found my scanner is a bit soft at the frame edges and produces ghosts/double images in high contrast areas. I was blaming lenses at first but it didn't' take long to figure out the scanner optics were the source of my problems. I don't think the OP's problem is scanner related though. I think he is just going through a learning curve......

The lens is probably 1,000 times sharper than the scanner...

 

[Jim Jones]

Polarizer filters are more complex than most other filters, and can go bad. They are made as a sandwich of plastic between two sheets of optical glass. The plastic can deteriorate or become deformed. This can happen even to top quality polarizers like Leitz and Nikon. Try two test shots, one with and one without the filter.

 

[lxdude]

Polarizer filters are more complex than most other filters, and can go bad. They are made as a sandwich of plastic between two sheets of optical glass. The plastic can deteriorate or become deformed. This can happen even to top quality polarizers like Leitz and Nikon. Try two test shots, one with and one without the filter.

I just recently tossed one that I have used for 25 years because of this.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Polarizer filters are more complex than most other filters, and can go bad. They are made as a sandwich of plastic between two sheets of optical glass. The plastic can deteriorate or become deformed. This can happen even to top quality polarizers like Leitz and Nikon. Try two test shots, one with and one without the filter.

B&W too. But, I've had it since about 1978.

 

[Clovis Blevins]

All three shots posted exhibit front focusing. Shooting at f/1.4 exacerbates this misalignment. Recall that the image you see in the viewfinder is reflected by the reflex mirror, flipped around by the pentaprism, then projected on a ground glass (with fresnel focusing aid) screen. That screen MUST be the same optical distance from the lens as the film plane, otherwise front focusing or back focusing will occur. The focusing screen needs to be realigned. I do this by removing the back and taping a ground glass to the film track and focusing on a sharp target 12 feet away to obtain a perfectly focused image on the ground glass with the shutter open, THEN I release the shutter and adjust the focusing screen until I see the same point of focus as the film plane sees. It takes a few tries to get it good and dialed in.

 

[clayne]

Good advice on how to determine if the focusing screen is off - but that being said this is a Nikon FE, otherwise an infallible camera.

 

[Clovis Blevins]

Even a Rolex needs adjustment every decade or so.