Tokina 24mm f2.8 canon FD mount

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by rich00, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. rich00

    rich00 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 8, 2011
    Hi all,

    I got some mixed results from Tokina 24mm f2.8 canon FD mount. I'm just wondering if anyone would have any ideas on why the vast results from sharp to soft IQ at the same aperture f2.8. The iso is different in both shots but I don't think it would such a difference.

    Or am I being a bit anal with the expectation of this legacy lens ?

    <a href="" title="031 by Rich_00, on Flickr"> 6778507520_7e5bfaae9d_z. "640" height="480" alt="031"></a>

    <a href="" title="053 by Rich_00, on Flickr"> 6924636303_a3521b8d57_z. "480" height="640" alt="053"></a>
    • Like Like x 1
  2. CarlB

    CarlB Mu-43 Veteran

    It's a quality of the light, if I'm not mistaken. The first is a from a single source, causing sharp shadows and contrasts. The second is light bouncing this way and that, diffused, with no chance for contrasting shadows.

    For the second, try a bit of post with it to bring up the contrast. I would also crop down on the pair, perhaps just leaving guy in the back unscathed. I really don't think it's a difference in the lens' performance here.
  3. rich00

    rich00 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 8, 2011
    Thanks for the reply. I'm still quite new to photography so still working out a few things.

    The light issue does it happen with newer lenses as well ? Does the same issue occur with the native lenses ?

    IS there any I can to do reduce this ? Will a lens hood help ?
  4. harrysue

    harrysue Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 12, 2011
    I'm not sure which photo is the one you don't like. Is it the second one where the name tags on the table are sharper than the one on the subject? Looks like the focus is at the front edge of the table. The safety pins are in focus. So it appears to me, you just had the wrong focus point. If so, then the main subjects aren't in focus and there wasn't enough depth of field to pull them in.

    As a new shooter, time to learn about depth of field. At any focus point for a lens, there will be a distance in front and in back of that point that is stays in focus. That's depth of field. Beyond those points, the scene will lose focus. With larger apertures, DOF shrinks. With smaller apertures, DOF gets wider.

    You can easily see this in the first photo. Eyebrows on the figures sharp. Gunwales of the boat soft. DOF gets smaller at shorter subject distances.

    Here's a useful online link that will help you run the numbers.
    Online Depth of Field Calculator

    At f2.8 with the Tokina on your camera and these subject distances:
    1 foot. The depth of field is only +/- a tenth of an inch.
    5 feet. DOF is +/- 5 inches.
    20 feet, DOF expands to 5 feet in front and 10 feet in back of the focus point.

    Take the aperture to f8, and the calculator says that if you set the lens to 20 feet, everything from 10 feet out to 280 feet stays in focus.

    Thirty five years ago, I copied down the DOF numbers for my little camera and glued it to the back of the camera. It's still there.

    You don't need a table. There should be a scale on the Tokina. Let someone else explain that if you need more.
  5. rich00

    rich00 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 8, 2011
    Thanks for the extensive reply. Will read into the DOF calculations.

    I'm noticing that the lens flares or loses contrast quite easily. I do understand this is old lens designed for film so I can't expect sharp results in all occasions. So I'm now considering going to native lenses. With the legacy lenses I've been able to experiment without spending a vast amount money and it's helped narrow down the key lenses that I'm after.