Fogged Lens or Not, Here are some photos for C&C


No longer a newbie, moving up!
Jan 27, 2008
Reaction score
Bemidji, Minnesota, USA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Well, the long lens I have is foggy for some reason (moisture and/or fungus growing on the inside as mentioned in other threads pertaining to my fogged lens issue). I'm not scared, I'll go use it anyhow. Not all of these were taken with the long lens, I have a short one too that seems to be a lot better. And as promised in earlier threads of mine, the last photo will be my first moon composite...please enjoy, critique, comment, laugh, mock, etc. etc. etc.:





The long-awaited, much anticipated, moon composite shot done by yours truly, AgentDrex (I know, what a let-down, right):

Not to hate or anything like that, BUT, the moon shot looks shopped. A little blurry and it looks HUGE! If this is what it really looked like, man that's insane. Does need work that's true. keep at it though. Did you not use a tripod?
A tripod, shutter release, and my 135mm, which has a fogging issue (hence, the title of the thread), were used to "shoot" the moon. The stars were done with my shorter lens and a longer shutter speed. It is a composite, so on your recommendation, I'll keep the moon smaller.
BTW Bram: Yeah, even Iron Maiden's "Run for the hills..." wouldn't work in the event the moon were to be that big that far away from the horizon. Slam! Goodbye world. How big do you think it should be?
2 3 and 4 are the best I think. #4 is probably the overall best I think. The softness actually ads to this shot. I think the color and contrast could be tweaked slightly, but I think its definately a keeper. Overall the lenses appear very soft, but for cheap and for certain applications, who cares.

I agree the moon shot doesn't look very good, no offense. The moon needs more definition around the edges, you would still be able to make out the dark edges where the moon is not lit. Right now, I think the light edges make it look out of place and "Placed"
Will retake a moon photo when I get a different long lens. This current one, without some work, will continue to give soft edges, which I'd like to keep in my growing kit. Thank you for the comments, however, you mentioned a few were the best. Why, in your opinion, are those particular ones the best? As a growing photograper here, I find helpful to not only to find out what is wrong about my photos, but also what I did to attract a eye.
I really really like #2 and #4, the moon shot is great but for some reason didn't really appeal to me. Composition in #3 could be a bit better, it's really cluttered. Perhaps, shooting from a lower angle would improve the contrast?

Just my two cents.
#2 has a nice composition and subject matter. Could use more contrast though
#3 has really nice color
#4 has a really nice surreal quality to it with the soft focus

They are all soft to a degree, but you don't notice the others as much til you blow it up.
#4 looks to me almost like you INTENTIONALLY softened it.

LOL U had me on #5 firat the first glance then I was like WAIT A SEC! hahah good oen but yes if it was a little more focused then it would have looked really good. Not bad, i like ur shots Agent!
Thank you, that is definitely looking for.

I can't wait until I get a new lens so I can take another "shot" at that moon...I will try to get back at that photo of the tree as well...lower angle sounds good...wish I had a crane so I could do a shot from above...

I'm re-addicted to photography again with these new lenses...much funner than that kit 18-55mm
#4 is a tip-off to the potential that this lens has!!!!

Imagine how nice it would look with bright, dappled sunlight and a pastoral, feminine, or delicate subject in front of the lens...the softness probably varies with lens aperture used as well...this type of in-camera, through the lens softening is NOT the same as post-processing manipulation. With a lens or filter that causes in-camera diffusion/softening effects, the highlights spill over into the shadows,and change the way the image is formed in the camera...that is not the way post-processing manipulation works.

With different lighting, like bright, dappled sunlight, or full,strong June-July-August sunlight, or strong electronic flash, this lens might produce some beautiful effects. It's worth investigating what apertures produce what type of effects. Right now, the sunlight is losing strength every single day, as we move toward fall and then winter...there's an old saying that the only way to really know a lens is to live with it for one have not even scratched the surface of what this lens can do...
Yay! Thank you, that was a lot of fun to read...I can understand completely the idea behind "living with a lens" for a year...I really ought to keep a journal along with me when I go shooting...
Fogging will typically affect contrast far more then sharpness. The contrast seems pretty good so it's probably performing as "good as new."

BTW: Most of the less sharp shots seems to be suffering from motion blur.
I don't know what the specific lens issue you have, but can it actually be aperture setting? When I push my 50mm to F1.2/1.4, photos become "dreamy", which is nice depending on the context.

On the other hand, my F2.8 has pretty badly worn coating on the rear element and results in dreamy photos too. The difference is, for the 50mm, the dreamy effect is worse at towards the outside and sharper in the center. The F2.8 with bad coating is dreamy evenly.

Most reactions