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!
David,I would agree, if the price is right. Best to buy from somebody that will exchange if the copy is poor though. I got lucky with my eBay CV75/2.5 as I could fix it myself.
Hi Wilson,David,
Out of interest, how did you lap the RF cam to equalise the amount removed for all distances. I might give this a go on my 35/2.5, as there is little to lose. Otherwise it is just a paperweight. It is never going to be much good for digital but it might be OK for use on my M4.
Wilson
Wilson I note that your copy of CV35 BACK focuses in that case you need to lengthen the RF tube?David,
Out of interest, how did you lap the RF cam to equalise the amount removed for all distances. I might give this a go on my 35/2.5, as there is little to lose. Otherwise it is just a paperweight. It is never going to be much good for digital but it might be OK for use on my M4.
Wilson
Agreed David. I was going to put a shim under the mount and then do the fine adjustment by lapping the RF cam. I also have a John Milich mount which is .01 mm thicker than the Voigtlander one. I don't think the RF cam slope is quite right as well. The back focus is worse at infinity than at 2 meters.Wilson I note that your copy of CV35 BACK focuses in that case you need to lengthen the RF tube?
Hi Wilson,Agreed David. I was going to put a shim under the mount and then do the fine adjustment by lapping the RF cam. I also have a John Milich mount which is .01 mm thicker than the Voigtlander one. I don't think the RF cam slope is quite right as well. The back focus is worse at infinity than at 2 meters.
Wilson