Finally got my Nikon adapter! Have a problem unfortunatley.

[colbycheese]

I just got it yesterday. Here are a few test shots. I have the Nikon 50mm f1.8 and also a Tamron Adaptall 80-210 lens. It's a heavy beast. Is this lens good at all? i want to try it at the next airshow. Here are some photos. They aren't particularly that great but here are 2:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

blue jay in motion

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I was doing some zooming on the first picture and discovered this:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It seems to be a bit of abberation
There is also some weird abberation (i think that's what it is) on the whiskers.
Is there anything i can do about this? The lens has a clear 0 UV filter on it. Nothing else.

 

[Ned]

Take off the UV filter, and add a hood.

 

[colbycheese]

Take off the UV filter, and add a hood.

OK. i will do this. Where can i get a cheap filter for a few dollars?

 

[speedandstyle]

Older lenses will have some color fringing. They lack the advanced coatings of modern lenses and they were made for film which was not quite so sensitive in this area. I agree with Ned drop the UV filter(they don't work on digital) and get a hood. Also try to avoid situations that cause fringing. Lastly much of the color fringing can be corrected in post with Lightroom or similar software.

 

[Ned]

OK. i will do this. Where can i get a cheap filter for a few dollars?

No, don't add a cheap filter! You want no filter if you want to avoid image degradation. Add a hood, and that will improve your contrast and reduce glare, while also protecting your lens from bumps and absorbing some of the shock from falls.

 

[MAubrey]

Don't use a filter at all. They don't contribute anything for sensors (UV rays don't affect sensors the way they do film) and they will degrade IQ. For protection, a hood is a more useful add-on.

 

[Ned]

Also try to avoid situations that cause fringing.

Like heavy back lighting.

 

[colbycheese]

No, don't add a cheap filter! You want no filter if you want to avoid image degradation. Add a hood, and that will improve your contrast and reduce glare, while also protecting your lens from bumps and absorbing some of the shock from falls.

oh sorry i meant hood.

 

[Ned]

oh sorry i meant hood.

Ah, that's better then. The easiest and cheapest would be the type which screw into your filter threads, using the same filter size as the UV filter you've now taken off.

The most readily available would probably be a rubber filter from your local camera store (should be about $5). The best (and most protective), would be a good hard plastic or metal filter. These can be hard to find though... some stores may have them, or you may try a camera exchange if you have one in town. A used camera store/exchange will get you the best hoods for cheap (shouldn't be more than $5-$10/ea), but I don't know if you'd be able to find one or not in your area.

Otherwise, if you don't mind the wait then you can also find something on eBay or otherwise online. I'm a brick and mortar shopper myself, so I wouldn't be able to help you there. I go to my local camera exchange whenever I get a new legacy lens, and ask him to pull out the box of hoods for XXmm filter size. Rangefinder sizes (40.5mm and 46mm) mysteriously became difficult to find though, once the Olympus Pen system made its debut. xP

 

[GaryAyala]

All those images look soft to me.

 

[mattia]

It's an old Zoom. Very few of those are known for their high quality.

Just saying.

 

[colbycheese]

All those images look soft to me.

sorry, but what do you mean. what f-stop should i be using?

 

[chasm]

Based on my own experience, there doesn't seem to be much logical consistence as to which legacy lenses will work well on µ4/3. My favourites are my Minolta MD 50mm macro and my Jupiter-9 85mm. Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.7 is pretty good, if not as stellar as I'd hoped. Many others which I'd loved on film just didn't seem to make the transition well.

 

[GaryAyala]

sorry, but what do you mean. what f-stop should i be using?

The images are not sharp, they lack well define edges, the contrast seems very low. I know nothing of the Tamron Adaptall, but if that is an older zoom, pre-1980 or so, then yeah ... all early zooms were not very sharp. But the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 should be sharp, sharp as a tack (unless it's been banged around and the lenses are no longer aligned).

I consider these images to be sharp:

#1

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

PL25mm

#2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P7-14

#3

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Micro-Nikkor 55mm adapted to a GF1

#4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P35-100

#5

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

O15mm (Lens Cap lens)

Maybe your shutter speed is too low, or maybe the glass is low quality or unaligned, but you should be getting sharper images out of your camera.