Given up Matt or have you confirmed the aperture is not actually working as per what it's telling you?
Not much around $500. The 18-50 is a kit lens, very plasticy.
 Master
					
					
						Master
					
					
                                        
					
					
						Also have a Soligor 70-210 2.8-4
F22 and background not sharp.

Given up Matt or have you confirmed the aperture is not actually working as per what it's telling you?
Not much around $500. The 18-50 is a kit lens, very plasticy.
MY15 Discovery 4 SE SDV6
Past: 97 D1 Tdi, 03 D2a Td5, 08 Kimberley Kamper, 08 Defender 110 TDCi, 99 Defender 110 300Tdi[/SIZE]
 Master
					
					
						Master
					
					
                                        
					
					
						I just don't understand it. If I choose f22 shouldn't that give me the max focus depth ? So in my past shots with 2 different lenses and f22 objects 30cm behind the focus object are not sharp. Does that make sense ?
Thanks for your help.
Matt
It depends on the hyperfocal distance.
Also I just realised something, this is a DX camera and so you are effectively shooting f/16 when at f/22 from the point of view of hyperfocal distance. This is because the you are effectively looking at a smaller circle of confusion or in simple terms a magnified image (remember the 1.5x crop factor of DX).
Am I making sense?
MY15 Discovery 4 SE SDV6
Past: 97 D1 Tdi, 03 D2a Td5, 08 Kimberley Kamper, 08 Defender 110 TDCi, 99 Defender 110 300Tdi[/SIZE]
 Master
					
					
						Master
					
					
                                        
					
					
						Might be making sense but you're pushing my limits
So what is a good lense for the D90 ? The whole point was that I could use my old lenses.
Just seen this one Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens is around $700 imported. I think 17-70 would be good as it covers a lot.
Matt
OK, glad I didn't just add to the confusion.
The Tamron lens is a Di which means it is designed for the DX size sensor, just like the DX lenses from Nikon.
Basically any lens designed for digital cameras is going to be OK, some will be better lenses than others. A lot has to do with the ability to focus the light straight to the sensor which was something that wasn't as important on film. This is to do with the photosites on the sensor and the microlens technology employed to direct the light on to them.
MY15 Discovery 4 SE SDV6
Past: 97 D1 Tdi, 03 D2a Td5, 08 Kimberley Kamper, 08 Defender 110 TDCi, 99 Defender 110 300Tdi[/SIZE]
Plug some figures into this and see what it gives you, as a comparison
Depth of field calculator
Martyn
1998 Defender
2008 Madigan
2010 Cape York
2012 Beadell, Bombs and other Blasts
2014 Centreing the Simpson
VKS-737 mob 7669
It's the old story Roadrunner - it depends.
I find the 18 - 200 a good all round lens.
Edit: Disclaimer - The page is just to show the lens. Not advertising the company.
Mike
 Master
					
					
						Master
					
					
                                        
					
					
						So when I type in 52mm f22 also I will only get f16 with f22and distance 1.5m I get total depth 77cm
So how do you take a picture where the person in the front is sharp and everything behind that person ?? f64 will give me 3.8m
When I take my little point and shoot Canon and have F8 everything gets focused.
Matt
There maybe some confusion here. Smaller sensors have greater depth of field for the same aperture. So if we take a 'full frame' (ie 35mm) sensor as the reference, your APS-C sized sensor (1.5 or 1.6 crop factor) will have greater depth of field at the same aperture. So, in order to match F16 on your camera, a full frame camera would need F22 to achieve the same depth of field (everything else being equal).
Get a wide angle lens or stand further away with your existing lens on its smallest aperture setting (F22) and use hyperfocal focus. For example, I know that I can get everything tack sharp from 2-3ft to infinity using my 24mm lens set to F22 on my 35mm camera.
I think you may be expecting a little too much from F22 on your camera with the apparent close range of some of your shots.
These point-n-shoots have tiny sensors. Tiny sensors = huge depth of field. Hence the reason why you dont see focusing on mobile phone cameras - they dont need it
Perhaps if I can also add... when it comes to portraits, the ones I like the best are the ones where the subject is seperated from their background using very short depths of field.
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! | Search All the Web! | 
|---|
|  |  | 
Bookmarks