the_jim
human
I recently purchased a Fed 50mm f/3.5 because I was looking for a low-budget, vintage lens of decent quality.
When it arrived on Friday, I noticed that the glass was in pretty rough shape with very pronounced cleaning marks and scratches on all elements. There was also a lot of dirt inside and the lube was old and dirty. No problem, I took the lens apart, cleaned everything, relubed, took the glass out and removed the dust and finally filed off the infinity lock.
The next day I went out to shoot a test roll. I hurried home, developed and then scanned. The results were a little disappointing.
Example 1:
The right side of the image is flared out. The sun was behind me. I wasn't using a hood, but I assumed that this lens would be more flare resistant.
Example 2:
In this photo, the light reflecting off the umbrella caused some flare, though, luckily I was able to add contrast back into the woman's face in Photoshop.
Basically, what I am getting at here, is that I am wondering if this is normal. Does this lens need a hood? Is it supposed to flare this easily? Is it only a cloudy day lens (there are only 30 cloudy days a year in LA)?
Also I noticed a ton of astigmatism. Is that normal for this lens as well? None of my other 50mm lenses (I own six) show this much astigmatism in the corners.
Anyone have any hood recommendations?
When it arrived on Friday, I noticed that the glass was in pretty rough shape with very pronounced cleaning marks and scratches on all elements. There was also a lot of dirt inside and the lube was old and dirty. No problem, I took the lens apart, cleaned everything, relubed, took the glass out and removed the dust and finally filed off the infinity lock.
The next day I went out to shoot a test roll. I hurried home, developed and then scanned. The results were a little disappointing.
Example 1:
The right side of the image is flared out. The sun was behind me. I wasn't using a hood, but I assumed that this lens would be more flare resistant.
Example 2:
In this photo, the light reflecting off the umbrella caused some flare, though, luckily I was able to add contrast back into the woman's face in Photoshop.
Basically, what I am getting at here, is that I am wondering if this is normal. Does this lens need a hood? Is it supposed to flare this easily? Is it only a cloudy day lens (there are only 30 cloudy days a year in LA)?
Also I noticed a ton of astigmatism. Is that normal for this lens as well? None of my other 50mm lenses (I own six) show this much astigmatism in the corners.
Anyone have any hood recommendations?
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
there is some info in this old thread that might be of some help to you.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58172&highlight=black+tape
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58172&highlight=black+tape
the_jim
human
Very nice solution...and cheap. What are the dimensions of the hood you made? I have no way to view through the lens, so if I made a hood I run the chance of vignetting the corners of the lens.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
It is just a inch and a half diameter plastic bottle cap the I got off an industrial grade detergent jug.
the rest of the hood can be made of rolled thin cardboard and black tape.
my hood extends one inch out.
for a 50mm f 3.5 lens I do not think you will have any vignetting problems even if you do not flare the front of the hood.
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
Well, as the first shot shows; vintage you wanted, vintage you got..
These old lenses have some problem handling large differences in contrast. The lack of any coating on the internal surfaces is probably to blame. On the other hand, what's so splending about the first picture are the cues that it gives about depth and distance..
Seems like a lens with a purpose to me.. just takes a while to get to know and get the most out of..
These old lenses have some problem handling large differences in contrast. The lack of any coating on the internal surfaces is probably to blame. On the other hand, what's so splending about the first picture are the cues that it gives about depth and distance..
Seems like a lens with a purpose to me.. just takes a while to get to know and get the most out of..
the_jim
human
I think I agree with you Peter. I just watched "There Will Be Blood," again yesterday. That movie is a master course in what one can do with uncoated optics and modern film stock.
For me, I just need to rethink how I shoot to accommodate this lens. I like that kind of challenge.