Photo of a brick wall with my new favorite lens - Minolta 50/2.8 macro

Well, actually a single brick at about a 1:3 magnification, manually focused and hand held. I got this lens a few days ago and I am having a lot of fun taking photos of abstract textures, and I am starting to become genuinely giddy over the corner to corner sharpness of this lens. I purchased this one to replace a lost/taken 50/1.7 and a Sony 85/2.8 which I left in a small bag on a park bench and were subsequently long gone 10 minutes later when I doubled back. It's the original version so it doesn't have the focus hold button or limiter switch, but so far I am having less issues focusing this lens than I did trying out a Sony badged version a few months back. I am also loving the fact that infinity starts at around 6 ft so this will actually be a great walk around street lens in MF mode, just set it to f11 and infinity and hit the shutter when I see something I like.

I got this one in EX condition for under $200 from KEH, and as far as I can tell the only thing I'm giving up besides the aforementioned hold and limiter is digital coatings. To me completely worth it, I mean, where else can you get a tack sharp distortion free lens for under $200? I have to believe this lens would be twice the price if it had a canon or Nikon badge on it.

Mm... I'm seeing a bit of diffraction there, but that's not that surprising at f/11 on a crop sensor. Have fun with it.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

HobbiesAreFun said:

Mm... I'm seeing a bit of diffraction there, but that's not that surprising at f/11 on a crop sensor. Have fun with it.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the diffraction boogieman.. Are you sure you are seeing diffraction seeing as this lens is known to resist diffraction up to f16? I mean, I'm still using a 50mm lens at about 4 inches which means the DoF, even at f11, is at best a mm or so which is less than the differences between the peaks and valleys in the brick.

I'll give ya a pass for being 17 and all, but can you point out where you're seeing diffraction versus the slightly out of focus areas?

You can't quite resist diffraction... The lens can still be sharp regardless of diffraction, but that doesn't mean the diffraction doesn't occur. If you want to critique my knowledge, look at my photography before my age.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

HobbiesAreFun said:

You can't quite resist diffraction... The lens can still be sharp regardless of diffraction, but that doesn't mean the diffraction doesn't occur. If you want to critique my knowledge, look at my photography before my age.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Sorry, you're right, I don't mean to critique your knowledge based on your age at all and sorry if you felt that I was. Truly though, show me where diffraction is occurring in this photo as I'm not seeing it. I see out of focus areas, but I do not see any diffraction.

Me neither! I have a 50/2.8 RS macro and love it.

Tom2572 said:

HobbiesAreFun said:

You can't quite resist diffraction... The lens can still be sharp regardless of diffraction, but that doesn't mean the diffraction doesn't occur. If you want to critique my knowledge, look at my photography before my age.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Sorry, you're right, I don't mean to critique your knowledge based on your age at all and sorry if you felt that I was. Truly though, show me where diffraction is occurring in this photo as I'm not seeing it. I see out of focus areas, but I do not see any diffraction.

Click to expand...

If it helps, I used focus peaking and split the difference as I saw it between the peaks and valleys, so if you're looking for out of focus areas they should be at the higher peaks and lower valleys. Since it was handheld, I also can't vouch that it was parallel to the plane of the brick either so angle might play a part in what is in critical focus as well.

Diffraction is an effect of the resolution of the sensor as well, so the saying "it's known to resist diffraction up to f16" might not be entirely applicable here... It depends on the camera, which I have been too lazy to check i must add.

Tom2572 said:

HobbiesAreFun said:

Mm... I'm seeing a bit of diffraction there, but that's not that surprising at f/11 on a crop sensor. Have fun with it.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the diffraction boogieman.. Are you sure you are seeing diffraction seeing as this lens is known to resist diffraction up to f16?

Click to expand...

Erriv said:

Diffraction is an effect of the resolution of the sensor as well, so the saying "it's known to resist diffraction up to f16" might not be entirely applicable here... It depends on the camera, which I have been too lazy to check i must add.

Tom2572 said:

HobbiesAreFun said:

Mm... I'm seeing a bit of diffraction there, but that's not that surprising at f/11 on a crop sensor. Have fun with it.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the diffraction boogieman.. Are you sure you are seeing diffraction seeing as this lens is known to resist diffraction up to f16?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You're right. I should have stated that the 50/2.8 holds up its end of the bargain up to f16, ymmv depending on the sensor, but with the A57 there should be very little diffraction at f11. I'm just pointing out that what HobbiesAreFun saw as diffraction is more than likely plain old OOF areas since the depth of field is so close at this distance.

Let me go back and look at it when I'm in the USA, I'm on way too slow of a connection here in HK to even try.

Tom2572 said:

HobbiesAreFun said:

You can't quite resist diffraction... The lens can still be sharp regardless of diffraction, but that doesn't mean the diffraction doesn't occur. If you want to critique my knowledge, look at my photography before my age.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Sorry, you're right, I don't mean to critique your knowledge based on your age at all and sorry if you felt that I was. Truly though, show me where diffraction is occurring in this photo as I'm not seeing it. I see out of focus areas, but I do not see any diffraction.

Click to expand...

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

I'm curious. How does one "see" diffraction effects without comparing images taken with the same lens at different apertures?

Kzoozoomer said:

I'm curious. How does one "see" diffraction effects without comparing images taken with the same lens at different apertures?

Click to expand...

I'm wondering too. Usually I see diffraction at smaller apertures as generally reduced contrast throughout the image, and slightly less resolved detail when zoomed to 100%. The loss of detail is only noticeable in a direct comparison, and loss of contrast only becomes significant when stopped down to f/22 or so.

However, I don't really see the impact of diffraction on the OP's image. There's plenty of contrast, and there's no way to zoom in to 100% to check the details.

I just viewed it from my normal laptop, and now I think I know what it was. I was on a different computer, and I think the screen was just a rather low resolution (my 5th aunt's old PC in 呼和浩特, Inner Mongolia, China). My bad. I still think it could be sharper according to my usual screen, but it's not like what it originally looked like

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

I'm not looking to ruffle any feathers... I looked closely at this photo and while I agree at a comparison of different apertures would reveal at what point diffraction would occur.. but at f/11 and in this resolution, its a sharp photo from the peaks of in focus to the valleys of expected out of DOF... diffraction usually gives a slight cotton like appearance, and I don't see it...

I'm not sure why someone would point to diffraction as being " what is wrong with this photo " But I have seen far too many young people trying to be more than their years of experience would suggest... I think , just as "in this case" the 17 year old might be demanding some respect, in spite of his age. I have seen his photos , and they are very nice for the most part but with some that are less than stellar... on the other hand , I'm an old guy and still don't know that much about all this stuff.... I'm just offering an opinion on the photo, and I don't see diffraction, anywhere. The difference between young and inexperience ,and old and wise is the choice as to suggest something that just may not be.
--
Bill aka EO

I already said I don't think diffraction is necessarily what I was seeing, just a strange experience on a not normally used lower-resolution monitor... And I honestly don't and can't post most of my photos here on this forum to begin with. That kinda comes with the realm of event photography.

As for less than stellar photos, I expect that to be the case, and I'm glad I have some that are more than that. I've only been doing photography for less than two years, and I started with a bunch of terrible crap, and have been progressing since. Kinda just trying to take my time and learn what I can. One of my biggest areas of growth has been in the processing of my files, as well as design of products such as albums and books, but my compositions haven't changed much, and my eye hasn't progressed as much as I would like to think or hope it has.

And to the point of "far too many young people trying to bemore than their years of experience would suggest..." I think that would be pretty normal of any teenager, would you not agree? For the most part, part of being a teenager and growing up, especially during the extremely judgmental years of high school (towards others, towards oneself, and from others), that tends to happen. And no matter how annoying it is, every individual wants to prove him/herself, especially at this age. It's something I end up doing all too often, and all too easily. I hope I don't have to attempt to give evidence in some half-assed attempt to prove my own worth, and can instead let my written thoughts speak for themselves.

Annnnndddd voila. I'm tired, so goodnight to all. I think it may have a little bit of the "cotton" look you described, though that may as well be my strained eyes from a lack of sleep. Doesn't really matter. There should be some, but the lens may be sharp enough regardless at the aperture. No biggie.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Very nice close macro photo.
what we see here is mix of:
1. surface glare (that could be reduced by CPL filer use)
2. shalow depth created by very close distance.

I would say that N1 is main reason for "diffraction effect" that is not really, but is caused by polarized reflected light effect.

I use CPL for similar shots and getting nice sharpness.



--

Person is taking photos, not camera. When photograph is bad, it's because photographer doesn't know how to choose settings optimal to "own preferences". Then blames camera for bad IQ.
This is same as blaming car about arriving to wrong destination.

http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

HobbiesAreFun said:

I already said I don't think diffraction is necessarily what I was seeing, just a strange experience on a not normally used lower-resolution monitor... And I honestly don't and can't post most of my photos here on this forum to begin with. That kinda comes with the realm of event photography.

Click to expand...

You did not say that in your first post....

HobbiesAreFun said:

As for less than stellar photos, I expect that to be the case, and I'm glad I have some that are more than that. I've only been doing photography for less than two years, and I started with a bunch of terrible crap, and have been progressing since. Kinda just trying to take my time and learn what I can. One of my biggest areas of growth has been in the processing of my files, as well as design of products such as albums and books, but my compositions haven't changed much, and my eye hasn't progressed as much as I would like to think or hope it has.

Click to expand...

Hey look, I'm not beating on you.... you defended your age, brought up your age etc... You are doing what most teenagers do... No one is putting you down other than speaking too quickly about something that just isn't so, and its here that youth stands out... There is nothing wrong with asking question and offering an opinion, but with age comes wisdom and knowing when to speak and when to make sure you know how to remove your foot from your mouth..

I applaud your interest and talent. I expect you to make youthful statements. You are doing good things... Here is my point.,.. when you are offering a negative criticism, be sure that its correct... Like I said, you don't want to get that " oh he is just a kid " reputation.

I enjoy viewing your photography, and you exuberance. Don't fall into that trap of thinking that at 17 you are a photographic prodigy...

HobbiesAreFun said:

And to the point of "far too many young people trying to be more than their years of experience would suggest..." I think that would be pretty normal of any teenager, would you not agree? For the most part, part of being a teenager and growing up, especially during the extremely judgmental years of high school (towards others, towards oneself, and from others), that tends to happen. And no matter how annoying it is, every individual wants to prove him/herself, especially at this age. It's something I end up doing all too often, and all too easily. I hope I don't have to attempt to give evidence in some half-assed attempt to prove my own worth, and can instead let my written thoughts speak for themselves.

Annnnndddd voila. I'm tired, so goodnight to all. I think it may have a little bit of the "cotton" look you described, though that may as well be my strained eyes from a lack of sleep. Doesn't really matter. There should be some, but the lens may be sharp enough regardless at the aperture. No biggie.

--
-Eric (17 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

-- I hope you accept my criticism in the manner inwhich I suspect you as a more mature 17 year old would.
Bill aka EO

EvilOne said:

I enjoy viewing your photography, and you exuberance. Don't fall into that trap of thinking that at 17 you are a photographic prodigy...

Click to expand...

He is a photographic prodigy.

As any person who takes photos capturing momens that are unique by nature of light, universe and time.

being young is great. I wish to have 2nd chance...

Take more shots, enjoy life and learn from everything around including forum members.

--

Person is taking photos, not camera. When photograph is bad, it's because photographer doesn't know how to choose settings optimal to "own preferences". Then blames camera for bad IQ.
This is same as blaming car about arriving to wrong destination.

http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

Tom2572 wrote:
...

Tom2572 said:

I got this one in EX condition for under $200 from KEH, and as far as I can tell the only thing I'm giving up besides the aforementioned hold and limiter is digital coatings. To me completely worth it, I mean, where else can you get a tack sharp distortion free lens for under $200? I have to believe this lens would be twice the price if it had a canon or Nikon badge on it.

Click to expand...

..

I have the Minolta 50 f/2.8 macro and is certainly sharp. But my Zeiss 135mm f/4 does do a little bit better and it only cost me bout $70. However, the Minolta is faster, has macro, autofocus, auto aperture and more modern lens coatings, all that is probably worth the extra $130

stan_pustylnik said:

Very nice close macro photo.
what we see here is mix of:
1. surface glare (that could be reduced by CPL filer use)
2. shalow depth created by very close distance.

I would say that N1 is main reason for "diffraction effect" that is not really, but is caused by polarized reflected light effect.

I use CPL for similar shots and getting nice sharpness.

--

Person is taking photos, not camera. When photograph is bad, it's because photographer doesn't know how to choose settings optimal to "own preferences". Then blames camera for bad IQ.
This is same as blaming car about arriving to wrong destination.

http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Very nice shot. How did you get the wide DoF, focus stacking?