Worst Color Fringing Lens

[randy_tate]

<p>I posted a question early concerning the 43-86mm Nikon lens because I'm trying to achieve a very vintage look with my video shot on a D7000. I have one on the way and hope it meets its reputation (it's the old optics (9 Lens/7 Groups) with multi-coating version).</p>

<p>But to that end, a lot of users also brought up 3rd party Nikon mount lenses. I think if I sum up what I want the most, I really want to see a noticable amount of color fringe around high contrast edges. This was something inexpensive <strong>Super 8mm camera lenses</strong> produced with high contrast, high saturation Kodachrome K40 reversal film (I actually got my last two 50 foot rolls back from Dwayne's photo last month - the end of an era - R.I.P.). They also exhibited a high degree of softness in the corners as well as fall-off. Low contrast still isn't that desirable but "softness" is not a real concern.</p>

<p>To add a bit of a twist, I picked up a Nikon-to-M42 screw adapter at a pawn shop today. There are no optics, so I'm not sure if I could focus to infinity with it but it was $5 (maybe I got robbed, I don't know). Nonetheless, I have that so old M42 mount lenses are a possibility too.</p>

<p>Any information this community can share is greatly appreciated.</p><div></div>

[ilmilco]

<p>Randy,<br>

i own a huge collection of glass, and there is 1 lens that in my opinion fits your request.<br>

It is a 17-35 2,8 to 4 DG AF HSM Aspherical produced by Sigma, and it is the version with a glass window over the distance scale, quite recent model. I used the lens on a cemetary and the clor fringing was very strong. For this reason i replaced this lens immediately with the Nikon 2.8 17-35 .The Sigma was an inexpensive lens, and i took the gamble ..... Probably many people will not agree with me, but for me this is the worst lens i have with respect to color fringing.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Fringing usually gets worse (or better in this case) towards the corners and edges of the frame. So WRT the Nikkor zoom, shooting on DX is not going to show the same amount of fringing as was reported when this lens was used on film cameras.</p>

<p>Cheap extreme wideangle lenses usually show fringing quite prominently. I'm thinking of an 18-28mm f/4 zoom that was sold in the 1980s under a variety of tradenames - Sirius was one of them. Add a cheap 2x teleconverter, and you should be in the vicinity of recreating the atrocious picture quality of a super-8 (super -hah!) cine lens. If it's still not bad enough you might have to use a frame-by-frame FX filter in post-camera.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Randy, just a wild idea. If you got a cheap UV filter to put on your lens, you could cover the edges with some opaque material to induce the vignetting you are looking for (if you stop down too far, the edges might be visible, try using edges that are not cut too sharply, tear rather than cut with scissors). TO get soft-focus instead of vignetting, use a translucent paper. As for as the chromatic aberration, I am not sure that it would be easy to do, but you could try intentionally smearing the glass with finger prints and sticky stuff, or assuming that the filter is a cheap/throwaway one, intentionally scratch it at various places. Also, time honored tricks are to smear with vaseline/petroleum jelly to get soft-focus, and some sort of netting to get star-bursts.</p>

<p>Another thought: if you stack a bunch of cheap, uncoated filters, it just might create a lot of chromatic aberration.</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>hmm...what about a lensbaby? if you used their single glass or plastic optic you would get a lot of color fringing, and you could adjust the aperture to give you just the right amount of softness in the corners/edges.</p>

[craigd]

<p>The Nikkor 43-86mm zoom comes in two versions that can be distinguished by the writing at the front end. If the lens' description includes the word "Auto" (as in "Zoom-Nikkor Auto" or "Zoom-Nikkor-C Auto" and the writing is inside the filter threads, you have the early version which is truly horrible. The later version (including all AI copies) has the writing outside the filter threads and is much better.</p>

<p>But if you really want a "vintage look" I wouldn't go looking for lenses of legendary awfulness, just old ones. Uncoated triplets would be good: something like a Ludwig Meritar or Meyer Domiplan. You can get these in M42 mount and use them with a cheap adapter; I find Fotodiox to be a reliable and inexpensive brand. I'd certainly favor primes over zooms, because the "vintage look" generally was not shot with zooms originally.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Short story on Nikon & M42. Price is right, but only for closeup work; no infinity focus because the lens-to-flange distance on a Nikon is 46.5 mm and the Praktica (Pentax) Screw (M42) is 45.5 mm.</p>

<p>For the aberrations that you are looking for an ideal solution might be one of several "soft-focus" lenses, which achieve their soft-focus by just those kind of aberrations. Spiratone sold one called the Portragon and there was a very inexpensive plastic tube lens called the Sima Soft Focus +Macro.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It timed out while posting, so here is the picture of the two lenses. The Sima has a series of different waterhouse stops, some perforated and can be used for a macro soft focus as well as for normal portraits. Both lenses are 100mm focal length.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here are pictures taken with both. On the left. my bust of Lincoln with the Spiratone Portragon, and on the right, a macro picture taken with the Sima. Both lenses are T-mount and can be adapted to virtually any 35mm camera. The Sima can take somewhat less soft pictures at portrait distances and settings. By the way, the Sima lens is applied quantum physics. :)</p><div></div>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>Short story on Nikon & M42. Price is right, but only for closeup work; no infinity focus...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. I usually mount M42 lenses on Canon EOS cameras, where the respective flange distances are more compatible. Mounting foreign lenses on Nikon is less workable because Nikon has one of the longer flange distances among 35mm cameras.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>You might want to check out Lensbaby's line up, they have lenses that mimick the optical flaws of older lenses. <a href="http://www.lensbaby.com/optics-single.php">http://www.lensbaby.com/optics-single.php</a></p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>A bellows, stacked diopter lenses, and waterhouse stops might be awful enough. Mounting the diopter lenses concave or convex side towards the film and behind or in front of the waterhouse stops should make a difference.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Lensbabys don't <em>mimmick</em> optical flaws, they <em>have</em> optical flaws, and they're awfully expensive for a cheap magnifying glass stuck inside a piece of plastic drainpipe and attached to a bodycap ;-)</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>What kind of "vintage" look are you going for? 1970s art house movies or Super 8? They look extremely different.</p>

<p>One thing to consider if you're looking for a Super 8 look is that the depth of field was generally pretty wide. Most zooms were about f2 wide open, which gives depth of field equivalent to about f8 on an APS-C camera, maybe? I'm guessing. You'll need a really bad lens to fringe excessively at f8. Maybe better to shoot on a 24p camcorder or point and shoot.</p>

<p>Also, a lot of the "look" can be baked in in grading. High contrast, extreme saturation, tons of grain, etc. I find that my lenses with bad CA (Canon 18-55mm IS, for instance) look WAY worse (in your case, probably in a good way) once saturation is increased so test the effect out before committing to how you'll shoot.</p>

[randy_tate]

<p>Thanks for all the valuable feedback. I have some good ideas to work with. If I get something truly awful, I'll make sure to post the results.<br>

Dawg.... I'm gunning more for a Super 8mm look than art house. I've experiemented with various post effects and actually they look pretty close. What would also be cool is if there was a way to shut off the D7000's automatic CA correction. I searched the manual but didn't find anything.</p>

<p>I know the DX format will crop a lot of the defects out of a lot of these lenses. I did some test crops with images posted online with the 43-86mm. There were still some effects left. I can only wait until my lens comes in and shoot some test footage.</p>

 

[randy_tate]

<p>The Lens Baby gives me an idea though. If I could find a magnifying glass with a short enough focal length, I could easily make my own bellows and tape a body cap to the back for mounting on the camera. I did this once with a Polaroid lens, though it was too telephoto to manage easily. The big down side of course is having the mirror open while shooting, protected only by a flimsy DIY setup that will let dust in. </p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Another set of potential solutions not yet mentioned are the third-party interchangeable mount lenses, especially Tamron's <a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/">adaptamatic/adaptall series</a> (not the adaptall-2 series which tend to have more corrections in the optics and more effective coatings), Soligor T4 and Vivitar TX series. These retain infinity focus with the appropriate dedicated glassless adapters to Nikon mount, possibly also aperture control although I'm not familiar with that aspect on Nikon DSLRs.</p>

<p>I haven't used any T4 or TX lenses myself but some of the adaptalls and adaptamatics are interesting for producing flat/pastel-like 50s/60s postcard color palettes, eg the adaptall 24 f2.5, 35-80 f2.8-3.5 and 70-150 f3.5 (plain or macro version). For color fringing effects the worst = best one might be the <a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/PFJ-45Au.html">adaptamatic 21 f4.5</a> although AFAIK that's a rare lens.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Sample pictures shot by Luis Alegria with the 21mm f4.5 can be found <a href="http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-adaptamatic-21-4-5-1960s-ultrawide-t15900.html">here</a> - probably not enough distortions compared to what you're looking for...</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Yet a different tack that won't sacrifice infinity: screw-on front lens add-ons such as the many low budget wide angle auxiliaries. An extreme example would be the classic Spiratone fisheye auxiliary, which produces plenty of color fringing and edge distortion.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>It came under the spiratone brand as well as various other designations I don't recall now, goes in the $60-100 range used.</p>

<div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>I made a post on the above Spiratone auxiliary lens at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00WndY</p>

<p>There is also a Spiratone prime lens - the Spiratone 7mm fisheye in a T-mount that can pretty much be used on any camera. It's not too bad stopped down, but wide open it has a few obvious problems of the sort you want. These have not only the various aberrations, but also a healthy dose of flare in most situations.</p><div></div>