*Blur

topic..

i am using manual focus with D40... no auto focus for that lens

Could you perhaps show a sample image(s) so that the kind forumers can help you "debug" the issue?

---

Added on March 1, 2007, 4:13 pmif u see properly the edge of the cone has some blue edge... why

This post has been edited by littlegreen: Mar 1 2007, 04:13 PM

where's the original image?

this is the original jz that i resized it.. is it OK with the image above.. too big

---

Added on March 1, 2007, 5:32 pmtoo big i meant the ori~

---

Added on March 1, 2007, 5:34 pmhttp://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc0007ic0.jpg

this another image also like that bigger alittle bit

This post has been edited by littlegreen: Mar 1 2007, 05:34 PM

try a smaller aperture. u wont get everything sharp at f6.

ic.....was doubting this ans y.... is that ...any reason for it f6 refer to what...

if u're that ignorant about how a cam works, u';re not gonna understand what i''m going to say next.

aperture,focal distance and zoom controls your depth of field. the aperture is the size of the hole that lets light in into your cam. the smaller the f number, your dof would be shallow, while the bigger the f no. , it'll be more in focus. usually to get all in focus u need about a f11.

uncle google's very helpful u know, and there's a bunch of tutorial links in the tutorial forum, do check it out.

ok dont get mad... hmm...i used the wrong word.... actually i have the feeling of making the aperture smaller would fix it... but dono y....

i'm not mad at all..

if u have the feeling tht it might work, why dont u try it??

at the same time i oso suspect that either my camera or the lens is spoiled .. anyway thank for the explanation atleast i know that it is liddat...and neither the equpment is spoiled.. hehehe

---

Added on March 1, 2007, 8:32 pmone more question... since it is going to be blur ..then what is the good use of the tele...

This post has been edited by littlegreen: Mar 1 2007, 08:32 PM

Littlegreen, usually the lower-end lenses tend to have OPTICAL deficiencies like unsharpness, chromatic abberation (usually purple or bluish 'auras' in the border of regions of high contrast), spatial distortion, etc. These deficiencies are usually more pronounced at the extreme focal lengths of the zoom (ie. at the widest and narrowest view angles) and especially at the largest aperture openings of those extreme focal lengths.

Nothing to worry about it's just the limit of your lens.
It's a common rule-of-thumb to shoot with a lens stepped down 1 or 2 stops in f-stops to get the best resolving power from your lens.

erm....lower end as in my lens is the old type?

and the second part u were suggesting me not to focus till the limit of it but using the lens focus with 75% of the power; not maximum power?

thankz

---

Added on March 1, 2007, 10:04 pmone more question can this

solve my problem...like this model is a high end lens... admit i am using the lower end

LD 70-300mm lens tamron..old one..my dad one... so fortunately i pick up this hobby i took over this all lens...

a little disappointment for the problem...





This post has been edited by littlegreen: Mar 1 2007, 10:04 PM

my bro got this lens for his 350D too, its not a very good lens. Its meant for those analog film cameras well, that's just my point of view

oh ok... :|...

www.photozone.de has reviews of lenses.

besides, he's manual focusing. He might not now which is the sharpest focus. D40 isnt it?

get the new 70-300mm VR
u wont get that problem

ya... d40 me and can onli manual focus with tele...


icicic....



what is tele mainly used for other than modeling shots

---

Added on March 2, 2007, 8:57 amas most of the time i prefer kit lens

This post has been edited by littlegreen: Mar 2 2007, 08:57 AM

I think for the D40, the AF lock indicator is still turned on and fully functional even though you're using fully manual focus with a lens?

Yes, i know. That's why i said he might not know about it. even 350D has that feature

okok what does it means...

Sniping other people? Long reach keeps you away from being noticed so the subject's response stays natural.



Some subjects you just can't get near to (physical barrier like a fence or water) so you need a long focal length.



Some telephotos have great near-macro capabilities too.



I shot the above photos with the 1970's Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8-f/4 lens.


I wish I could afford better... but apart from it's rather bad chromatic abberation and poor contrast (it's sharp though), it's pretty fun to use.

---

Added on March 2, 2007, 8:36 pmLOL. Confirmed.

This post has been edited by cjtune: Mar 2 2007, 08:36 PM

yupyup.. mine is tele macro....

---

Added on March 2, 2007, 8:45 pmk.. thank for the explanation

---

Added on March 3, 2007, 2:42 amlook closely ur pic also got some blue edges

This post has been edited by littlegreen: Mar 3 2007, 02:42 AM

A lens is generally considered a macro lens if it has near 1:2 reproduction ratio.
1:1 means that the object appears on the sensor the same size as in real life.

The blue edges are the chromatic abberation I mentioned about.
It's a 1970's lens design and made for film cameras, so it's probably a typical performance on digital bodies. By today's standard, it's a low-end lens. But try and find one with f/2.8-f/4 at S$136...
The 'proper' lens I should be using is the S$1600 50-200mm ED Olympus Zuiko Digital. But I am hesitant to spend more on Olympus gear as I may jump over to Canon later. Well, let's see what gets announced by Olympus at Photokina in a day's time.

---

Added on March 3, 2007, 4:25 pmBTW, don't despair about getting chromatic abberation aka. 'blue/purple fringing' in your photos. They can be removed by software. My Paint Shop Pro v10 does a decent job at it.


This post has been edited by cjtune: Mar 3 2007, 04:25 PM

oh,, ok at least there is a solution.. i feel relieve now with that.. thank man

i think that most tele can have very good macro ...

Nope. Even though the longer focal lengths permit a larger object magnification, most telephotos have a long (1m+) minimum focal distance. I think the normal magnification factor for most telephotos is like 1:2.5 to 1:5. Plus, they are usually not optimised for sharpness at very close focal distances.