Is the Tamron Di II 17-50mm f / 2.8 a good lens?
Looks like you just broke a UV filter. The metal edge may have distorted a bit and that is why your lens cap is stuck. You can try to extract it but you can also replace it.
But you may want to inspect the rest of the lens. The (real) front lens may have scratches caused by broken glass from the filter (*) and the thread of the filter may be damaged. You can also check the lens for focus or alignment issues. Paste a newspaper image on a flat surface and take a photo (tripod or very high speed, with the optical stabilizer disabled) trying to be as perpendicular as possible to the surface. Then look at the result in pixels, looking for asymmetries in the focus. Do the same at low speed with the stabilizer activated.
If the results are not good, repeat with another lens to see if the problem is related to the lens or the camera body mount that has misaligned.
You can also get a rough idea of alignment issues with a spirit level:
The bottom of the camera is flat and parallel to the axis of the lens. I use an L-shaped support with the other branch flat on the kitchen counter (which is horizontal, depending on the spirit level). Thus, the edge of the lens must also be horizontal, which can be checked with the spirit level in two perpendicular directions.
You can also check the parallelism on both sides of the lens in a similar way.
(*) This is an unfortunate example of why having a UV filter permanently on the lens can do more harm than good.
I just dropped a 70-200 f2.8 lens and the images are pretty washed out and blurry. I'm really sad about it because I just borrowed it from a friend of mine for the weekend.
The outside of the lens is a bit damaged, but the glass is beautiful. There may be calibration issues. I have included some photos to demonstrate the point. Basically, the images are really blurry at the edges, but the focus works.
What can I do in such a situation? Is it worth it to be calibrated, and if so, how much does it cost?
I need help, I just dropped my 70-200 f2.8 lens and the pictures are pretty washed out and blurry, I'm really sad about it because I just borrowed it to a friend of mine for the weekend 🙁 The outside of the lens is a bit damaged but the glass looks fine. There could be calibration issues. I have included a few photos to demonstrate the point. My question would be what can I do in a situation like this. Does it cost?
So basically the images are really blurry at the edges, but the focus works
I want to start photographing newborn babies. But be aware that I am quite confused as to the lens that would fit my Nikon D7200. Wherever I look for information, all suggestions are for a full-frame camera.
At first I wanted a 24-70mm lens, but now I don't know.
So maybe you can help me decide. What lens could give me sharp images and beautiful bokeh?
I have a vintage Nikon Nikkor 500mm F / 5 Reflex lens around 1970 which will not focus endlessly with one of the Nik-NEX adapters that I need to connect this lens to my Sony A7RIII. The lens works great on a Nikon 7000 camera. The obvious problem I see is that the adapter is just a little bit too long. I am an amateur astronomer and my main use at the moment is astrophotography and my stars are not perfectly focused with the Sony adapter and camera. Any suggestion?
From experiments, it appears that lightly used sensor swabs (which are NOT contaminated with oils or abrasive particles) make reasonably good internal lens element cleaners and dryers (they are actually lint-free and not "lint-free" at least).
Plus, there's always extra cleaning fluid in a sensor cleaning kit – and it seems to be working fine, although it's a little too much. do not aggressive with regard to certain glass pollutants.
Are there any caveats that I haven't noticed yet, as long as I don't use this method on first generation soft coverings?
If you want to continue using your seven Pentax lenses, your best option would be to upgrade to a better Pentax camera.
There are mechanical adapters that allow Pentax K mount lenses to be at the correct distance from the sensor so that infinite focusing is possible with Canon EF mount cameras. But you're going to give up almost any automation: autofocus and any exposure mode that requires the camera to adjust the aperture setting (which you'll have to manually adjust on the lens ). You will almost certainly waste most of the capabilities that first attracted you to the Canon EOS 90D.
If you want to use the Canon EOS 90D, you will only get maximum performance with Canon EF and EF-S lenses or third party lenses made in the Canon EF mount which are up to date in terms of firmware.
I currently have 7 Pentax K mount lenses to which I am very attached and on which I spend a lot of money. They have been used with Pentax K20D, now I am looking to upgrade the camera. I like the idea of the new Canon EOS 90D APC-S camera. Can you tell me if after purchasing the adapter I will be able to use my lenses 100%? Or some qualities might not work? I was considering getting a Pentax K-70 or Pentax KP, but I think this Canon is overall better.
Please give your opinion,
Thank you so much.
For so-called unitary focusing lenses (many, but not all main lenses), bringing it closer to the sensor is what will make it focus endlessly, and that’s what mechanics of the lens DONE actually to focus.
Lens designs that focus only by bringing the front element or group closer to the rest of the lens can usually (if these are simple designs like tessars) be focused in the same way, the front element being as close as possible.
So-called internally focused lens designs that focus only or in addition by moving elements between the front and rear groups can also be focused this way, but this will cause problems. Most zooms are of this type, focusing them in this way can compromise the perfocality or sometimes even the quality of the image. Main designs using internal focus will most of the time have picture quality issues if the rear group is even at least the wrong distance from the sensor (ultra wide ones can give horrible results if ; they are at a fraction of mm!).