View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lens-o-matic
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 Posts: 54
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:12 am Post subject: Polarized 17mm tamron SP - Photo improved! |
|
|
lens-o-matic wrote:
I just bought a used Tamron SP 17mm f3.5] + Circular Polarizing filter off ebay. For it's first public appearance I took it to a local rowing regatta attached to my Nex.
I can't believe the sky in my images! But I wonder if someone can answer a question...
All my pictures were taken at f16-f11 but they aren't "super sharp". I used the high f stop to achieve what I hoped to be super critical focus. The pictures are ok, but well, have a look:
Here is a crop striaght out of camera. Is this what I should expect, or is it the lense, or the fact I did not use a tripod - any ideas? Maybe my f-stop was too high? Maybe I have unrealistic expectations?
thanks in advance!
Last edited by lens-o-matic on Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Not strange. Many wide angles just aren't very good at infinity.
Others are not accurately marked for infinity focus. It isn't easy to get this precisely as the adjustments on such a short focal length are tiny. And hitting accurate focus with such a wide angle isn't easy.
You may also be using smaller than the optimum aperture. I suggest you test different apertures at infinity. The smaller the format, the larger the aperture for the sharpness sweet spot.
Your pictures really are very nice, I wouldn't be at all unhappy with them. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
I can't say how good the lens "should" be, as I have never used this one personally... but my first instinct would be to remove the polarizer and test it again. What brand is the polarizer?
Also, were you using a hood? Managing flare can be a bit tricky on crop format cameras, as you can have times where the sun is still in the lens view, just not in the cropped area captured by the sensor or viewfinder... The bright point of light doesn't show, but the internal reflections can still wash out the captured image.
The sample crop you posted seems to have a bit of "glow" reducing the contrast... A bit of post-processing with a large-radius USM can help a little bit, but it isn't a perfect fix by any means.
_________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Either your filter can be crap and lens too. Shoot in raw and sharpen your images. Filter quality can be very vary. Try your lens without filter and compare result. What kind of camera do you have ? I found my Tamron 17mm also perform quite crap on Olympus E-1. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10959 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Looks like when I use wide lens on 'hyperfocal' settings to make landscape photo, you know f/8 and focus at mark on distance scale. I think 'hyperfocal' lens setting is for example make everybody in room in focus, not to make best focus extend to infinity, for close not far away in-focus. To get infinity in focus, I have to focus lens at infinity. To get foreground more in focus I stop down and move focus closer a tiny bit, minimum acceptable. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
f11-f16 is to high for APS-C
try to stay at 5.6 or 8, your shutter speed will be higher
maybe 1/80s is not enough for holding a cam without viewfinder in the air _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
There are several things to consider:
- a 17mm lens is not easy to handle in manual mode
- a polarizer often does not work properly with a 17mm (the angle is just too big)
- a bad filter can deteriorate IQ badly
... _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Just to summerise to what everyone has already said really:
1. f11-f16 will introduce diffraction on a 14MP NEX, which softens the image
2. Adapters are often not perfect, meaning finding infinity is not easy
3. Shutter speed will be slow at f11-16 = possible camera shake
4. Polarizer may be reducing image quality
5. The Tamron SP 17/3.5 is an old lens - it's not as good as modern wides! _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Xpres
Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Posts: 964 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-10-28
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Xpres wrote:
Also... I'd think the hyperfocal markings on the lens will be inaccurate on a crop camera, you have to use the magnified live view to be sure and stop down to check.
I find the 17mm pretty good and useable on full frame but you have to be very careful on a crop camera and use it at about 5.6. I gave up using wides on 4/3 as it was too much hassle to use for not great results. The only exception I've found is the superwide Heliar 15mm on m4/3 which you don't have to focus at all and is super sharp - great for street stuff. _________________ Film... and sometimes SD14, 5D2 and some other suff! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote: |
Just to summerise to what everyone has already said really:
1. f11-f16 will introduce diffraction on a 14MP NEX, which softens the image
2. Adapters are often not perfect, meaning finding infinity is not easy
3. Shutter speed will be slow at f11-16 = possible camera shake
4. Polarizer may be reducing image quality
5. The Tamron SP 17/3.5 is an old lens - it's not as good as modern wides! |
... and
6. Use a hood to minimize flare, perhaps even a deeper than normal hood since the lens is on a crop-format camera. _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lens-o-matic
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 Posts: 54
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lens-o-matic wrote:
Thanks for your comments, they are really helpful.
Tomorrow morning I will go outside and take some sample shots: f5.6,f8, with filter, and without filter.
Scheimpflug, what were values of the other settings for your unsharp? I don't normally sharpen, so I could use some guidance there as my trials didn't turn out nearly as well as yours (are you using lightrrom? - does USM produce the same results, even in different packages?).
Thanks All! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lens-o-matic
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 Posts: 54
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:06 pm Post subject: Thanks!! |
|
|
lens-o-matic wrote:
I tried a series of different captures under similar harsh lighting to isolate the problem/solution as per suggestions - the end result was increasing aperture to f5.6 (from f16/f11) had a large impact. Here are 100% crops from the centre:
Before (f16)
After (f5.6)
I guess this improvement is about as good as can be expected?
Would a different lens give better results? If so, what lens would you recommend around 17mm?
Removing the circular polarizing filter made a small improvement in resolution, however, the specular highlights blew out a lot of detail, so that didn't work very well.
Thanks for your help everyone!
Last edited by lens-o-matic on Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
lensautomatic wrote: |
what lens would you recommend around 17mm? |
when you get your FF, you will find many great 24-25mm _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:02 am Post subject: Re: Polarized 17mm tamron SP - Photo improved! |
|
|
DSG wrote:
lens-o-matic wrote: |
I just bought a used Tamron SP 17mm f3.5] + Circular Polarizing filter off ebay. For it's first public appearance I took it to a local rowing regatta attached to my Nex.
I can't believe the sky in my images! But I wonder if someone can answer a question...
All my pictures were taken at f16-f11 but they aren't "super sharp". I used the high f stop to achieve what I hoped to be super critical focus.
|
Of course their not sharp, you have stopped down too much and therefore have diffraction issues.
The Tamron is sharp wide open and so it does'nt need to be stopped down to make it sharp. You should never need to stop down to more than f8 to get everything in focus from foreground to infinty as its so wide. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
erm Using Orio's "microcontrast super" sharpening they look sharp enough for me on my monitor................................... _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lens-o-matic
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 Posts: 54
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:42 am Post subject: Re: Polarized 17mm tamron SP - Photo improved! |
|
|
lens-o-matic wrote:
DSG wrote: |
Of course their not sharp, you have stopped down too much and therefore have diffraction issues.
The Tamron is sharp wide open and so it does'nt need to be stopped down to make it sharp. You should never need to stop down to more than f8 to get everything in focus from foreground to infinty as its so wide. |
hmmm...
Interesting - I found this site:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
If I understand correctly, on the nex-5 sensor, f8 is just about the smallest aperture I can use before diffraction limiting takes it's toll. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
Quote: |
If I understand correctly, on the nex-5 sensor, f8 is just about the smallest aperture I can use before diffraction limiting takes it's toll |
and for 4:3 it is f5.6, some zoom can be used only wide open
look how diffraction make lens best at f2.8 on 4:3
check also http://forum.mflenses.com/faq-for-crop-t31975.html
_________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
lens-o-matic wrote: |
Scheimpflug, what were values of the other settings for your unsharp? I don't normally sharpen, so I could use some guidance there as my trials didn't turn out nearly as well as yours (are you using lightrrom? - does USM produce the same results, even in different packages?). |
I mostly use the free & open source image editor "GIMP" for my retouching.
http://www.gimp.org
I would expect that you could achieve the same (or better) results in lightroom though...
I can't remember the exact settings I used, but to get you started, just try dialing down the "amount" (say to 0.2 or less), and then crank the radius to something really high... say between 50 and 90. This will take care of most of the glow, but it won't really sharpen the edges much. For this, you can give it a second pass, say at radius 6 or less, but still keeping the amount low. If you get too aggressive with the "amount" parameter, the contrast will go crazy and you risk losing all of your shadow detail. It's one of those things that you just have to experiment with, and see how the images respond. _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote: |
5. The Tamron SP 17/3.5 is an old lens - it's not as good as modern wides! |
I place my bet on this single point.
You can find very good MF lenses within 28-135mm. But outside that range there are very few good lens designs. This is one of the areas where modern lenses are much better: extreme wide angles; the other two being extreme telephotos and zooms. _________________ http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|