43mm Ltd
6,794 posts
Link
Posted 02/03/2010 - 19:03
It's obviously broken, and worthless. Don't worry though, i'll give you fifty quid for it 
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Link
Posted 02/03/2010 - 19:10
You just can't trust these cheap optics. Can I have second refusal if it's got to go?
A.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
A.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Link
Posted 02/03/2010 - 19:23
It is actually normal for lenses to behave differently (in terms of front/back focus) under tungsten lighting compared to daylight or flourescent light. Often you won't spot the change as the depth-of-field is sufficient to mask small discrepancies, however, when you use a lens with a very wide aperture then obviously critical focussing is more, er, critical. I tend to stick to manual focus under tungsten, especially with my 43 and 77.
Apologies to those respondees hoping to pick up a bargain - I promise not to answer any more questions for at least a week...
Joining the Q
Apologies to those respondees hoping to pick up a bargain - I promise not to answer any more questions for at least a week...
Joining the Q
73 posts
Link
Posted 02/03/2010 - 19:37
Thanks hefty, you're right in that it's only noticeable at f1.9. You've allayed my fears that I had a dud. It' such a great lens that excentricities like this I can certainly live with.
I was very close then to sticking it in the classifieds for £50 or so. Sorry guys...
I was very close then to sticking it in the classifieds for £50 or so
. Sorry guys...
Link
Posted 02/03/2010 - 19:48
Oh Shucks!
Hefty had to go and spoil our fun. I do so hate voices of reason, don't you davex?
A.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Hefty had to go and spoil our fun. I do so hate voices of reason, don't you davex?
A.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
15 posts
Link
Posted 02/03/2010 - 20:59
I see exactly the same with my FA 50mm (on a K20D). Focus is fine in daylight, but needs -10 indoors for tungsten. It's a pain.
Link
Posted 03/03/2010 - 20:15
andymcm wrote:
I see exactly the same with my FA 50mm (on a K20D). Focus is fine in daylight, but needs -10 indoors for tungsten. It's a pain.
I see exactly the same with my FA 50mm (on a K20D). Focus is fine in daylight, but needs -10 indoors for tungsten. It's a pain.
Thanks for that Andy - it has put my mind at rest.
I have just bought an FA50 1.4 and it is very different to the longer slower lenses I am used to.
I was beginning to wonder if I had a duff one.
Link
Posted 03/03/2010 - 21:16
hefty1 wrote:
It is actually normal for lenses to behave differently (in terms of front/back focus) under tungsten lighting compared to daylight or flourescent light. Often you won't spot the change as the depth-of-field is sufficient to mask small discrepancies, however, when you use a lens with a very wide aperture then obviously critical focussing is more, er, critical. I tend to stick to manual focus under tungsten, especially with my 43 and 77.
Apologies to those respondees hoping to pick up a bargain - I promise not to answer any more questions for at least a week...
It is actually normal for lenses to behave differently (in terms of front/back focus) under tungsten lighting compared to daylight or flourescent light. Often you won't spot the change as the depth-of-field is sufficient to mask small discrepancies, however, when you use a lens with a very wide aperture then obviously critical focussing is more, er, critical. I tend to stick to manual focus under tungsten, especially with my 43 and 77.
Apologies to those respondees hoping to pick up a bargain - I promise not to answer any more questions for at least a week...
The K7 has a special sensor that reads the colour of the light and adapts the focus, so it should preform the same under all light sources.
You now have a reason to update your camera
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
dynamosh
Member
Herts, UK
My question is - is this normal or not. Not that I can take it back or anything nor would I want to, i'm just curious. I just need to remember to adjust the AF settings.
Any thoughts....?
Mike