Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-29-2007, 12:42 AM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Phoenix
Photos: Albums
Posts: 100
k100d/Takumar 85mm - indoor shots

So, I finally got a chance to go to they gym and try out my SMC Takumar 85mm 1.9 lens and practice with basketball shots.

Setup:

Manual Mode
Shutter 1/250 (min req. to stop action)
Aperture 1.9 - 2.x
Speed 1600
Manual White balance, metered off the nearest white t-shirt

The pictures are coming out very "soft" and with very dull colors.

Any advice on what I am doing wrong?
Thanks.

05-29-2007, 12:46 AM   #2
Veteran Member
-spam-'s Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 357
Im pretty sure that you posted nearly the exact same thread in the lens forum a while ago and you got some responses.

Try not to post the same thing in multiple forums, it just creates more work for the mods and admins to clean it up.

*takes off other forum admin hat*
05-29-2007, 01:04 AM   #3
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Belgium
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15
Hi.

Two years ago, I bought a Pentax DSLR because I owned several older K-mount lenses I wanted to use.

After a few month's I sold my old lenses and moved to the new ones, especially designed for D-SLR's.

The reason was the same as you describe in your post.

After some research I found that there are 4- yes, four - main reasons :

1. These old lenses are not as sharp as the new ones. The glass dissipates some light in different directions and because the CCD is much more sensitive than the old film we used, these diffractions are recorded as 'soft' lightning.

2. These lenses throw light around the CCD (note the CCD is smaller than a 35mm film) - and that light is kind of reflected. This may originate more softness...
This may also interfere with the white-balance.

3. Coatings are good but not optimized for the digital camera. You might want to add a hood for this lens so ambiant light doesn't scatter or diffracts in the glass.

4. The diafragma may be reacting to slow - or even not at all - and therefore you use the whole lens (the maximum aperture), and thus adding all the abberations of the lens, where typically, these abberations are more important at the edges of the lens.

Conclusion : Although we would want to keep our lenses that performed perfectly on our older analog camera's, they can't keep up with the new lenses.

Consider also this : when did ou enlarge a picture taken with your old lens and an analog 35mm film to the size you do with a D-SLR ?
Enlarging just to the size of your screen would probably add as much 'softness' We tend to be more critical than we were in the old days. Sadly, we need new and better lenses...

Last edited by jeda; 05-29-2007 at 01:19 AM.
05-29-2007, 08:56 AM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Phoenix
Photos: Albums
Posts: 100
Original Poster
doh!

I started that post, but didn't think I had finished and posted it (I even search for posts from me, but didn't see it) before I "reposted"

I was actually a bit annoyed that I had to retype everything.

Thanks for the feedback anyway, on both my posts!

I'll try a higher aperature and see if I can get the shots off with less light, or may have to bite the bullet and get the new 77, 1.8.

05-29-2007, 09:50 AM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Norfolk , Va.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 133
Your use of 1600 ISO most likely has a bit to do with the look you are getting also. If you can get away with a lower ISO (even 800)you will most likely get a better quality shot.
Kenn
05-29-2007, 11:12 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by jeda Quote
Hi.

Two years ago, I bought a Pentax DSLR because I owned several older K-mount lenses I wanted to use.

After a few month's I sold my old lenses and moved to the new ones, especially designed for D-SLR's.

The reason was the same as you describe in your post.

After some research I found that there are 4- yes, four - main reasons :

1. These old lenses are not as sharp as the new ones. The glass dissipates some light in different directions and because the CCD is much more sensitive than the old film we used, these diffractions are recorded as 'soft' lightning.

2. These lenses throw light around the CCD (note the CCD is smaller than a 35mm film) - and that light is kind of reflected. This may originate more softness...https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

This may also interfere with the white-balance.

3. Coatings are good but not optimized for the digital camera. You might want to add a hood for this lens so ambiant light doesn't scatter or diffracts in the glass.

4. The diafragma may be reacting to slow - or even not at all - and therefore you use the whole lens (the maximum aperture), and thus adding all the abberations of the lens, where typically, these abberations are more important at the edges of the lens.

Conclusion : Although we would want to keep our lenses that performed perfectly on our older analog camera's, they can't keep up with the new lenses.

Consider also this : when did ou enlarge a picture taken with your old lens and an analog 35mm film to the size you do with a D-SLR ?
Enlarging just to the size of your screen would probably add as much 'softness' We tend to be more critical than we were in the old days. Sadly, we need new and better lenses...
Well...... I have been using old Pentax lenses in *ist D and K10D (M, A, F and FA) very much . So I have quite a practical experience about this, so lets take these claims one by one:

"1. These old lenses are not as sharp as the new ones. The glass dissipates some light in different directions and because the CCD is much more sensitive than the old film we used, these diffractions are recorded as 'soft' lightning."

- They are as sharp as new ones.
- CCD is not " more sensitive" than film.
- the surface of CCD is reflective, thus in some occasions light can be reflected back to innermost lens surface. Only diffrence between "old" and "digital optimized" lenses is that the last surface of this last lens is also coated. in the film days this was not necessary and so not done. This happens with most SMC lenses very seldom and can be considered as an non-issue.

"2. These lenses throw light around the CCD (note the CCD is smaller than a 35mm film) - and that light is kind of reflected. This may originate more softness...
This may also interfere with the white-balance."

"throw light aroud the CCD" You must be joking? how old lenses are now tranformed to light throwers? :-) "interfere with the white balance" any optical element, despite how inferior quality it is, cannot have any affection to white balance if it is not coloured. Very good way to measure WB is to use pure white transparent surface in the front of the lens and take manual WB. (One international potato chips brand had earlyer very suitable cap in their carton for this) From this we can see that optical performance do not have anythig to do with WB......


"3. Coatings are good but not optimized for the digital camera. You might want to add a hood for this lens so ambiant light doesn't scatter or diffracts in the glass."

Coatings are basically made by the very same process today than some years ago, in the so called film days. Only very small enhancements have been made since the original SMC. These enhancements have had very minor affection to picture quality we see. And: Last film lenses and all "digital" lenses have the very same coating exept this last surface thing.

No coating can completely protect you from reflections made by direct light source from the front. Thus hood shoud be used every time these situations are in question. My recommendation is to use them all the time. They do not cause any harm, but protects you from reflections and can even protect first lens surface from impacts.

"4. The diafragma may be reacting to slow - or even not at all - and therefore you use the whole lens (the maximum aperture), and thus adding all the abberations of the lens, where typically, these abberations are more important at the edges of the lens."

If you lens diaghraph is reacting slowly, it is not due to a any "digital" issue, but your lens is faulty. Get it repaired.

Picture quality of all lenses is better if lens is slightly stopped down. This either has not anything to do wiht any digital thing.

First I thought that you are an troll, you can be one anyway, but some ingnorant people can take your stories as facts. So I had to make this reply....
05-29-2007, 02:34 PM   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by varnco Quote
So, I finally got a chance to go to they gym and try out my SMC Takumar 85mm 1.9 lens and practice with basketball shots.

Setup:

Manual Mode
Shutter 1/250 (min req. to stop action)
Aperture 1.9 - 2.x
Speed 1600
Manual White balance, metered off the nearest white t-shirt

The pictures are coming out very "soft" and with very dull colors.

Any advice on what I am doing wrong?
Thanks.
I'm not so sure about the 1/250th - certainly if you used the flash synch speed of 1/180th it would stop the motion - but as for the other things:
ISO 1600 is going to soften the image (due to noise) and I find it especially disagreeable towards skin tones.
The 85/1.9 is softer at f/1.9 but should be reasonably sharp at f/2.8. Your depth of field is going to be shallow, so make sure that you've got the correct plane of focus.
Shoot in RAW. I don't know about the K100 but it makes a difference with my K10 and DS.
I have found the colors to be pleasant from my 85, but certainly have found issues getting the right white balance under mixed indoor lighting. (Shooting in RAW eliminates this problem.)


You might want to check out strobist.com - there is a very detailed report about setting up flashes to capture basketball games. If you're serious about the photos, it is a small investment to get a great reward.

It also might help to post a picture or two.

(PS - I just noticed jeda's suggestion for the lens hood - I absolutely concur. I never use mine without a hood.)
05-30-2007, 02:35 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Phoenix
Photos: Albums
Posts: 100
Original Poster
Thanks for the tips... I'll try shooting higher f and perhaps lower speed and see what I get.

This sucker is tough to focus...

05-30-2007, 09:17 PM   #9
Senior Member
TomE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 294
The best old Pentax glass works great on the new Pentax DSLR's and is as sharp or sharper than the new glass.

Tom
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
85mm, camera, dslr, photography, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
have you ever compared the Takumar 85mm 1,9 with the SMC Takumar 1,8??? 1,8 & 1,4? beegee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-14-2009 07:31 PM
Help! Taking indoor shots gomdori Photographic Technique 34 11-08-2008 08:15 PM
k100D and 85MM Takumar - soft images varnco Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 05-30-2007 12:07 AM
k100d indoor shot acrbill Post Your Photos! 6 10-31-2006 12:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:01 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top