Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?
  
 
Romulus90
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


I took some pictures of my niece this morning and after reviewing the pictures, I'm a bit surprised with some of the results. I always thought the 35 f2 lens was pretty decent, but light sources in the pictures showed significant (IMO) blooming effects.







This one was at F2. Is this just worst case scenario, or is the lens not at nice as I thought?



Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02 PM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


Are you talking about the purple fringing? Lots of lenses will do that wide open. Lightroom does a pretty good job at removing them.

But yeah, my 35/2 does the same. Doesn't bother me so much. My 35/1.4G is also guilty at times.



Aug 10, 2013 at 11:10 PM
form
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


Don't overexpose the whites and it won't show up as much. Also reduce saturation of colors in-camera and it may not show as much.


Aug 10, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Guari
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


Sigma 35 f1.4 if it bothers you, I'm sorry to say...

I sold my 35 f2 when I got a D800. Loved it for it's size, but that sensor just highlighted its flaws and limitations just too much.

That's just me though



Aug 10, 2013 at 11:30 PM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


Just to give you an idea, this literally took me 2 seconds in LR 5. It's under lens corrections, then colour.




Aug 11, 2013 at 01:22 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


You can only expect so much from what is essentially a modestly specced 1989 era lens. The image is quite overexposed in the blue channel, which does not help.

EBH



Aug 11, 2013 at 03:06 AM
workerdrone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


Guari wrote:
Sigma 35 f1.4 if it bothers you, I'm sorry to say...

I sold my 35 f2 when I got a D800. Loved it for it's size, but that sensor just highlighted its flaws and limitations just too much.

That's just me though



Same story here. Was great on the D700, so-so on the D800.



Aug 11, 2013 at 06:49 AM
gugs
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


The old 35mm always suffered from terrible fringing and that's the reason why I do't use it anymore. On recent DSLRs, it is not a very good lens.

Guy



Aug 11, 2013 at 07:15 AM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


Works great for me on my D700. Should be even better on the D800 if you were to downsize to 12mp. The fringing is so easy to fix, I consider it to be a not issue.

I use it when lightning fast AF is a must. My 35/1.4G cannot touch it in AF speed.

I'm thinking people get a bit too hung up on lens flaws. Great photos can still be made with imperfect lenses.



Aug 11, 2013 at 04:49 PM
jhinkey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


I don't think it's fringing (i.e., color fringing or CA) - it's the famous Nikon "glow" that many old or older fast-ish Nikkors have when shot wide open with a highly contrasty scene. I believe this is residual spherical aberration perhaps aggravated by older coatings used on this lens.

Some people like this look, others not. No amount of CA correction can fix it - i.e., the example where the "CA" is removed shows other artifacts due to the correction.



Aug 11, 2013 at 05:11 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Romulus90
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


Thanks for the input.. The latest software I have is CS2, so I'll have to check and see if it fixes this.

I don't expect this, or any, lens to be perfect.. was just a bit surprised how noticeable the fringing was in this picture.



Aug 11, 2013 at 06:02 PM
gugs
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


BTW if you want to see an example of blooming:
http://www.techniphoto.com/wiki/index.php?title=Blooming

Guy



Aug 11, 2013 at 06:10 PM
sapper_6
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


I thought this effect was called Hallation (sp)? I kept seeing it in the Canon 50/1.4 wide open and two copies were never sharp i got rid of it.


Aug 11, 2013 at 06:16 PM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


jhinkey wrote:
Some people like this look, others not. No amount of CA correction can fix it - i.e., the example where the "CA" is removed shows other artifacts due to the correction.


You'll never get it completely perfect, but with a bit more care, you would never know it was there in a proper print or at screen resolutions.

I just slammed the slider from one end to the other.



Aug 11, 2013 at 06:34 PM
the solitaire
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


jhinkey wrote:
I don't think it's fringing (i.e., color fringing or CA) - it's the famous Nikon "glow" that many old or older fast-ish Nikkors have when shot wide open with a highly contrasty scene. I believe this is residual spherical aberration perhaps aggravated by older coatings used on this lens.

Some people like this look, others not. No amount of CA correction can fix it - i.e., the example where the "CA" is removed shows other artifacts due to the correction.


Nikon glow like in Tokina glow?

I had the above issue with a Tokina 80-200 f2.8. Awesome lens otherwise, but the subjects I intended to use that lens for pretty much showed the worst aspect of what is otherwise an awesome lens.

My 85 f1.8 AF-D also shows the same glow or fringing in the same type of situation. I donīt mind it with that lens however, and donīt even need to correct it because itīs a non-issue under the conditions I own that lens for.



Aug 11, 2013 at 08:46 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


jhinkey wrote:
I don't think it's fringing (i.e., color fringing or CA) - it's the famous Nikon "glow" that many old or older fast-ish Nikkors have when shot wide open with a highly contrasty scene. I believe this is residual spherical aberration perhaps aggravated by older coatings used on this lens.

Some people like this look, others not. No amount of CA correction can fix it - i.e., the example where the "CA" is removed shows other artifacts due to the correction.


Well, some confusion of denominators here. It is indeed a type of CA, and it's a combination of spherochromatism and LoCA.

Look at the image again, and try to SEE what happened, from a logical PoV. The effect is that blue gets seriously "spread", and it's mostly visible in areas of high brightness (but noticeable in other darker areas too).

Possible explanations:
1) Magic has happened. Or, the Nikkor badge was mounted with the wrong glue
2) The light contains a boatload of near UV light, and this causes the deep blue (and very intense!) light here to run out-of-focus compared to green and red.
3) The lens is very badly corrected for spherochromatism in deep blue, and this causes extreme spherical aberration in blue (much more than in the other two channels)

The D700 is more "narrow" in the recorded color spectra - so compared to the D800 it BOTH received less of the effect AND had a lower resolution. This gives the aberration a double-whammy, lowering the visible effect by a noticeable amount.

BTW - options 2) and 3) are my bets.

Tip - get an UV filter that cuts off VERY high, maybe even up in the 425nm region. This helps lenses with a lot of this effect (like the old 35/2) immensely. They can be hard to find, but most good quality "Haze2A" filter will work. In some cases, for people photography mostly, 2E is more appropriate (though it will mess up purple colors).



Aug 11, 2013 at 08:47 PM
jmcfadden
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


the image is overexposed
some optical brightners in laundry detergent cause all kinds of effects when overexposed
the white balance is also off but mostly the blue channel has hit the wall

none of these points i have addressed have anything to do with lens selection



Aug 11, 2013 at 10:13 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


No, but the points get amplified by a lens that has problems of its' own, giving the same effects regardless of the things you remarked on.

A Sigma 35/1.4 would not change the white balance, of course. But it WOULD remove most of the blue fringes. I can do some comparison shots tomorrow.



Aug 11, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Artisador
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Nikon 35 F2 - is this blooming?


More than likely it is a combination of issues, however, mainly, it is an issue, IMO, of fabric/dye florescence:

http://www.asu.edu/courses/phs208/patternsbb/PiN/rdg/irnuv/irnuv.shtml

We used to photograph a lot of fabric, years ago, particularly dyed woolens/yarns, etc., and ran into the problem often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence

"Fluorescence is the emission of light by a substance that has absorbed light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is a form of luminescence. In most cases, the emitted light has a longer wavelength, and therefore lower energy, than the absorbed radiation. However, when the absorbed electromagnetic radiation is intense, it is possible for one electron to absorb two photons; this two-photon absorption can lead to emission of radiation having a shorter wavelength than the absorbed radiation. The emitted radiation may also be of the same wavelength as the absorbed radiation, termed "resonance fluorescence".[1]

"The most striking examples of fluorescence occur when the absorbed radiation is in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum, and thus invisible to the human eye, and the emitted light is in the visible region."

"Fluorescence has many practical applications, including mineralogy, gemology, chemical sensors (fluorescence spectroscopy), fluorescent labelling, dyes, biological detectors, and, most commonly, fluorescent lamps."

This is a phenomenon not commonly known to most photographers who often are quick to judge perceived lens inadequacies, rather than understanding this issue and correcting exposure, using filters, changing light source, etc.

In the end, the result is not unlike other wave length distortions such as mirage....

The article does not go into depth about this issue, but is a beginning entry point.

Very closely related - OBA's are also contributing factors. Jmcfadden is correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener

"Optical brighteners, optical brightening agents (OBAs), fluorescent brightening agents (FBAs) or fluorescent whitening agents (FWAs) are dyes that absorb light in the ultraviolet and violet region (usually 340-370 nm) of the electromagnetic spectrum, and re-emit light in the blue region (typically 420-470 nm). Fluorescent activity is a short term or rapid emission response, unlike phosphorescence, which is a delayed emission. These additives are often used to enhance the appearance of color of fabric and paper, causing a "whitening" effect, making materials look less yellow by increasing the overall amount of blue light reflected.[1]"



Aug 21, 2013 at 01:44 AM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password