What is wrong?

[CaveDweller]

With this picture (apart from being slightly out of focus on the pup) in regards to the blueish tinge around the white markings on my border collies face?

Basically I shot this photo with an old OM lens on my Olympus pen and the old OM lenses seem to let alot more light onto the cameras sensor than the original 14-42mm that came with my PEN. Sometimes on really sunny days I have to crank the shutter speed right to 1/2000 and the F-number right up depending on the lens and set the ISO to 100 to stop over exposure...I was told I need to get an ND filter about this problem.

Basically would an ND filter have stopped this blue tinge around my pups white markings in this picture?

Here are some pictures of the lenses on why I reccon the old lenses let in more light. You can clearly tell the difference between the two.

The original 14-42mm that came with my PEN.

And the 50mm prime OM lens.

 

[JohnN]

I don't know the kit, but at first glance I would say its chromatic abberation, and unless somebody knows better I don't think a filter would help

 

[gramps]

Chromatic aberration?
Some lenses are more prone than others - easily fixed in processing.

 

[AJQS]

It's called chromatic aberration, it happens at high contrast edges (like where black adjoins white as here). I've never know it happen with a Zuiko OM lens though and I've abused plenty. You do appear to be using a filter though, which is most likely the reason.

As for more light yes you are 100% right - the aperture is much larger on the 50mm. The F number defines this - it's a fraction of the focal length so the largest opeing on the 50mm is 1/1.8th of 50mm in diameter (27.8mm dia.) and the m.Zuiko is 1/3.5th of 14mm at the wide setting (4mm) and 1/5.6th of 42mm at the long setting (7.5mm).

 

[ACW]

That's because the 50mm has an aperture (hole size) of 1.8 and the 14-24 has a maximum hole size of 3.5 which is far far smaller.

That 'old' 50mm 1.8 will have the same size hole as my recent Canon 50mm 1.8 or that from any manufacturer.

 

[CaveDweller]

Thanks for the replies. I will just have to edit it out in photoshop for future pictures now I know what it is

It's called chromatic aberration, it happens at high contrast edges (like where black adjoins white as here). I've never know it happen with a Zuiko OM lens though and I've abused plenty. You do appear to be using a filter though, which is most likely the reason.

As for more light yes you are 100% right - the aperture is much larger on the 50mm. The F number defines this - it's a fraction of the focal length so the largest opeing on the 50mm is 1/1.8th of 50mm in diameter (27.8mm dia.) and the m.Zuiko is 1/3.5th of 14mm at the wide setting (4mm) and 1/5.6th of 42mm at the long setting (7.5mm).

This picture was actually taken with my 80-200mm OM lens which doesn't have a filter. I will have to experiment the next time I take the camera out with the dogs with the different lenses and filters.

The one fitted on the 50mm prime in the picture is a SUN skylight (1A). I have no idea what it does, it was just on it when I got the lenses from my dad. I am still learning and new to all this photography jargen Keen to learn though and can't wait to get better.

 

[Photodiva]

Hi Paul. My guess is chromatic abberation. May be the coatings on that old lens aren't up to your digital camera? You can fix it to some extent. in RAW.

 

[scottishguy]

Would white balance not have some affect on this too? I don't know, but just thought I'd ask anyway!

 

[Pablosammy]

The two lenses should let the same amount of light in at the same aperture settings - the difference you've observed is the much larger maximum aperture of the prime lens. Don't put an ND filter on unless you have a desire to shoot wide open in sunlight - it won't help with the aberrations, they're just a feature of the old lens.