Doppler9000
Well-known member
I cannot abide the sticky residue left by tape.+1 for use of tape![]()
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I cannot abide the sticky residue left by tape.+1 for use of tape![]()
Gaffer's tape, a photographer's duct tape, lol!I cannot abide the sticky residue left by tape.
There are a lot of people who like the 72L, but if you don't fine you use it enough let me know because that is one I have been looking forMan, you have a point there. I just finished sending a 35XL to Arca for a remount, and I was planning on doing the same for a 72L, I'm not even sure I will find that particular focal length useful but since the 60XL is so hard to find (that particular focal length coincides with one of the most-used equivalent focal lengths on my GFX) I don't seem to have a lot of options in that range. Maybe I should start doing my homework properly![]()
Rob, I wonder if the experience that you've gained in improving the performance of your Apo-Digitar 35mm by using shims to adjust the distance between the front and rear cells might have also helped resolved the issue that you had with the Nikkor-SW 65 that you tried and found wanting?I don't know about the Sironar-N 100 because I haven't tried one. But as I noted earlier in the thread, I was surprised to see how well the Symmar-S 100/5.6 did. The APO-Symmar 100/5.6 is better, but the Symmar-S held its own.
It would be interesting to know if the Grandagon 65 was a good performer. I tried a Nikkor-SW 65 and found it unsatisfactory. I could not get edges in focus when the centre was in focus, at any distance.
That's a great question. I don't have it anymore to check, but I'm inclined to think not. The reason is with the other lenses that needed cell spacing adjustment, it was not possible to get sharp focus at all on the edges. Image quality was bad no matter where I focused. However, with this 65mm I could get sharp edges, or sharp centre, but not both at the same time until f/11 and smaller.Rob, I wonder if the experience that you've gained in improving the performance of your Apo-Digitar 35mm by using shims to adjust the distance between the front and rear cells might have also helped resolved the issue that you had with the Nikkor-SW 65 that you tried and found wanting?
-John
Granted, too late now since you've moved the lens on, but this sounds like possible field curvature? My understanding is that proper shimming can help mitigate such effects, so shimming *might* have worked after all. My SK 60XL was just a bit soft at the edges when shifted, and this cleaned up nicely when I inserted a shim between the Copal and the front lens cell group.That's a great question. I don't have it anymore to check, but I'm inclined to think not. The reason is with the other lenses that needed cell spacing adjustment, it was not possible to get sharp focus at all on the edges. Image quality was bad no matter where I focused. However, with this 65mm I could get sharp edges, or sharp centre, but not both at the same time until f/11 and smaller.
For sure. It's uncharted territory. For all I know a slight tweaking to the spacing might have sorted it out.Granted, too late now since you've moved the lens on, but this sounds like possible field curvature? My understanding is that proper shimming can help mitigate such effects, so shimming *might* have worked after all. My SK 60XL was just a bit soft at the edges when shifted, and this cleaned up nicely when I inserted a shim between the Copal and the front lens cell group.
John
Rob, the curvature that you describe for the Nikkor 65 sounds very like the curvature exhibited by a Zeiss ZM Distagon 35mm F/1.4 that I used to use on a Sony A7R2. In that case, the general consensus in the user community was that introduction of the sensor cover glass into the optical system was the issue, and as one particularly clever punter discovered, it fixed perfectly when a weak OptiSigma meniscus was added on the front. With that in place, I could shoot it wide open with even performance edge to edge, and stopped down it was a fabulous landscape lens.For sure. It's uncharted territory. For all I know a slight tweaking to the spacing might have sorted it out.
Edit: This discussion motivated me to go back to the files I had saved when evaluating the lens. Where it was in focus, it was really good -- clean, crisp and sharp. There's definitely strong field curvature, but maybe John (@jng) is right and it could have been sorted out with a spacing adjustment.