Haze from film lenses on a digital body

[pbjef]

<p>I use a Nikon D50. I've attached some film lenses, both Nikon and Minolta with adapter. Both film lenses give me a kind of haze on the final image. I understand that these are not the optimal combinations of lenses/bodies, but is there any way to filter or clean the haze by using filters or anything else?</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Is the haze on the optics themselves? Or do you mean the photos are lacking in clarity, contrast and saturation?</p>

<p>If the optics are clean and clear, you're probably seeing the effects of flare. Newer lenses often have more effective coatings, especially on the rear elements, to offset the effects of internal and veiling flare that can appear more noticeable in digital cameras. That's a problem with my Vivitar Series 1 70-210/2.8-4 zoom on the Nikon D2H. It lacks the clarity and snap I'm accustomed to from newer lenses with better multicoatings.</p>

<p>Assuming the lenses are clean and clear, be sure to use a lens hood or other means of shading the front element from stray light.</p>

<p>Otherwise, you'll either need to tweak the digital files to improve contrast, or use the lower contrast and saturation as part of the desired look. I have a couple of older lenses that I like for that effect.</p>

[pbjef]

<p>The photos lack clarity. contrast and saturation. I posted a sample of the film lens. I'll also post same location with a 50mm digital lens. I'll look into a lens hood, I really like this particular lens, just not the haze. </p><div></div>

[Rob F.]

<p>Oh, is there haze? I didn't notice. I must have been distracted by something else in the photos . . . They look good to me!</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If you want better images, <em>a suggestion</em>: get a Nikon D60 body and the AF-S VR 18-55mm DX kit lens. You will be more content with images taken with a *newer* camera body.</p>

<p> It may be time to retire your D50 body...it was a fine camera when first put on the marketplace.</p>

<p> </p>

[pbjef]

<p>Thanks Jerry, it's hard to write that I have that body. I would love a newer body, but I'm not in a financial position to do that at the moment. But, yes, definitely on the Christmas list. Was looking into the D7000. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Well, first, there's no such thing as a film lens or a digital lens. They're all just lenses. Mine move between my film and digital cameras without issue. (If you look <a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/21616771@N04/sets/72157629894384189/">here</a> you won't be able to tell, without looking at tags, which photos I shot with new lenses and which I shot with old manual focus lenses.) The only time "film lenses" don't work on digital is with a limited number of lenses that have light coming out the back at too sharp an angle, which film doesn't care about but it causes weird fringing effects when intersecting with the grids stacked on a digital sensor - but that's not happening in these photos.</p>

<p>What lenses did you shoot those with? When you use Minolta lenses on Nikon, how exactly do you do it? You have an adapter with a lens in it, right? Because the register distance is wrong, a Minolta lens on a Nikon with an adapter is too far from the sensor and won't focus right without a lens in the adapter, but often those adapters are made with cheap glass that degrade your image.</p>

<p>But even when you're using a Nikon lens, technique is important. You need to nail the focus (which is hard on a DX body with a manual focus lens) and the exposure. A D50 with a manual lens doesn't meter, right? You need to use the histogram to check exposure, not the image on the LCD. It's hard to tell in the first shot where the focus is but I think it's on the bikini, not on the face where (counterintuitively) it should be. Both shots are underexposed, the second more than the first. Also, you're going to want to shoot raw and adjust for contrast and color balance in post.</p>

[pbjef]

<p>Andy, good point about film/digital lenses. I need to keep that in mind. The manual lens I shot with was a Minolta Rokkor X 55-75mm 3.5 with a Minolta to Nikon adapter. I understood the register distance is off. I've experimented with my dad's old Minolta lenses and found the sweet spot for these is in the 55-75mm range. A 135mm doesn't work well and a 45mm is too short. <br>

Correct, a manual lens doesn't meter, but I can get the exposure with a digital and then mimic it on a manual. Both shots are straight out of the camera, no adjusting. And I do shoot RAW and adjust as needed. I use the manual lenses to practice my focusing. They also give a quality to the photo that I like. I get similar results with a Nikon 70-200mm. <br>

Is there any filter that will help with the haze?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...there's no such thing as a film lens or a digital lens."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorta true. But the description "digital lens" isn't entirely without merit. It's generally applied to lenses with better multicoatings, particularly on the rear element group, to minimize the type of problems with flare described by Jef in this thread. As higher resolution sensors exploited optical flaws more ruthlessly, consumers demanded better lenses and manufacturers complied by designing lenses specifically to cope with the demands of higher resolution digital cameras.</p>

[lwg]

<p>The same flare issues will be found on a newer body. Telling the original poster to replace a functional camera is poor advice. Not only will it not fix the problem, it's just plain rude.</p>

<p>The problem is most likely flare as others have said. A hood may help, but most likely it's due to reflections off the sensor flaring off the rear element. The newer lenses are better in this regard. But your images look pretty good, and can probably be fixed up nicely with just a simple curves adjustment.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any filter that will help with the haze?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It's called a lens hood. What I'm seeing in your first picture appears, to me, to be <strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare">flare</a></strong>. It's most likely caused by light from the sun hitting the front element at an oblique angle and bouncing around inside the lens. And the fact the you are using an adapter with an extra element that is, more than likely, uncoated doesn't help either. I use a multitude of film era lenses on my DSLR's without issue, many of them from the 60's and 70's. I realize that lens technology has come a long way, but, honestly, I feel like these old lenses do just fine for my uses and there wouldn't be enough improvement in image quality to justify spending thousands to replace what I have now.</p>

<p>The D50 is a bit long in the tooth as far as digital cameras go, but is still a very capable camera, and certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I only recently upgraded from a D50 to a D300. The only reason I upgraded was because I wanted a camera that would meter with my old lenses and had a few more MP's for a little more leeway for cropping and enlarging. It certainly didn't have anything to do with the quality of the images. Have a look at my gallery if you want. All but the most recent few and the oldest ones were taken with my D50.</p>

<p> </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Your film lens photo is correctly exposed: the next one needed more exposure. This makes the argument (pardon me) muddy. I shall also advise the use of a hood (and no filter) if the flare bothers you. There is <strong>no need to buy another camera</strong>. The matter of which you speak is not related to old or new.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>This looks better, on my monitor anyway.</p><div></div>

[jim_momary]

<p>The sun is at your one o'clock and you are shooting partly upwards.</p>

<p>Looks to me that the first picture was shot in sunlight that also hit the front lens element of the lens causing flare. (dappled light by overhead trees?)</p>

<p>It looks like the second shot maybe had the lens in the shade or shadow of some tree part.</p>

<p>If that's the case a lens hood might help or you have to shade the front of the lens with a hat or piece of cardboard. If you are looking into the light (as these photos seem to demonstrate) you need to keep the sun off the front of the lens.</p>

<p>Jim's 2 cents</p>

[pbjef]

<p>Thanks for all the advice. I'm going to shot-gun it and invested in a UV and CPL filter and a lens hood just to test the scenario. The film-era Minolta lens will NEVER be as crisp and clear as a newer lens, but it's FUN to sharpen my skills. I'm attaching processed pics. I can process out most of what I'm talking about, but I'd rather it be right out of the camera.</p><div></div>

[pbjef]

<p>And this is the film era lens corrected. Still looks hazy, but contrast corrects a lot of it. You can see more of a difference, in my opinion, AFTER they are processed. </p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I think that the lens has little to do with your dissatisfaction with the original pix you posted. IMHO the major problem was lighting. Improving that would have taken you 90% of the way to your goal. The last 10% might be post processing. For example, w.r.t. PP, it looks like you use no output sharpening. Just omitting that one thing from your workflow would give a soft look to the images.</p>

<p>While PP is not the way to fix everything, here's what I got with a couple of minutes in ACR / PS. Note: I made absolutely no attempt to warm up her skin (like you did in PP). I just wanted to get the tonal values more to my liking for a fair skinned girl like her. Proper lighting would have done much better.</p>

<p>See what you think.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

Jeff, why did you post the images without postprocessing? The one you've worked on is a lot better. I don't see

anything wrong with it.

 

Btw I also like the Rokkor glass. I use it on a Micro 4/3 camera. For example, everything here:

except the first three is shot with a 45/2.0 MD.

The primes don't lack in sharpness at all. The zooms aren't quite at the level of current lenses.

[pbjef]

<p>Andy, I wanted to get a true rendering of what I was talking about. Photshop can mask just about anything. And I know I can take certain things out or add them. I really wanted to know if anyone had run across a similar scenario or knew of a way to avoid it or correct it. The post processing is a lot of work I want to avoid if possible. </p>

[leighb]

<p>Another point to consider is the image circle (IC) diameter. That parameter is not published<br /> for small-format lenses, but the value can be inferred from the intended application.</p>

<p>By definition a lens for a 35mm film camera must have an IC at least equal to the diagonal<br /> of a 35mm film frame, which is 24mm x 36mm, having a diagonal of ~42.3mm.</p>

<p>When you use that lens on a digital camera with a smaller sensor area, the lens still illuminates<br /> a circle of 42.3mm. The light outside the sensor area just bounces around inside the camera<br /> body and can cause flare and unwanted contrast reduction.</p>

<p>Given that your posted images were shot almost directly into the sun, it's quite likely that some<br>

direct sunlight reached the image plane in the camera and bounced around.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Leigh, I don't buy that it's the image circle. By that token, I would have image degradation when using the Nikon 70-200mm or 300mm f/4 lens on a DX camera, and even moreso when using Canon EOS full-frame lenses on cameras like the 20D, T3i, 7D, etc. I've never seen that be the case. I agree that it's poor technique (first off shooting directly into the sun, the shadows are long and pointing towards the photographer) along with questionable gear (which lenses? Are they low-end zooms from the 1970's? Is the adapter a cheapo with a poorly constructed correcting element?).</p>

[leighb]

<p>Hi Ariel,</p>

<p>That's fine. I'm not selling anything, so you're not obliged to buy anything.</p>

<p>The old "I've never seen..." argument is specious. <br /> I've never seen a volcanic eruption, but that does not mean they don't exist.</p>

<p>Excessive IC coverage is a real problem under certain circumstances. It will be<br /> much more pronounced when shooting directly into the sun, as the OP did.</p>

<p>From the angle of the shadows it's quite likely that direct sunlight got to the<br /> image plane, whence it would have scattered all around the interior.</p>

<p>The severity of the problem depends on a myriad of different conditions,<br /> most of which cannot be easily defined or evaluated.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Wait, back up, you're saying that any time you use an FX lens on a DX camera you're losing quality because of the light that went to the sides of the sensor? That can't possibly work. Pull out a DX camera and an FX and look at the mirror box cavities - the one on DX is actually smaller, and anyway they're both lined with material that absorbs light very effectively.</p>

<p>You'd also have a problem with all those DX lenses that also cover FX when you're focused close.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Actually, you are selling an argument. But, to use less pedant-inducing language, let me rephrase:<br>

I'm aware of internal reflections affecting large format photographers with their bellows. I have also seen internal reflections affect mirrorless users (micro 4/3, NEX) that use short focal length adapted lenses coupled with adapters to increase the register distance, or even with DSLR users using an adapter to use medium format lenses, such as this thread:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Z9aZ<br>

However, this is the first that I have heard of APS DSLRs being affected by internal reflections of the camera itself from full-frame capable lenses. Do you have any links evidencing this occurrence?</p>

[leighb]

<p>Take the lens off of any camera.<br /> Lock the mirror up and shine a flashlight in from the front.</p>

<p>Do you see any shiny spots?</p>

<p>You generally won't with an LF camera because great care is taken to minimize that problem.<br /> The same is not true for small or medium cameras, which are designed to work with a restricted<br /> range of lenses.</p>

<p>The severity of this problem will be different for every camera body, every lens, and every<br>

shooting situation. My comments were directed to the OP with his on-axis sunlight.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>