thompsonkirk
Member
Using Really Right Stuff stuff, I just checked out the nodal point(s) of this lens and wonder if others have seen similar results. I ended up with one point, 95mm.
After trying primes, and despite a longstanding prejudice against zooms, I've settled on the 32-64 as my lens-of-choice for the kind of landscape photography I do (at fairly close or 'personal' distances, and often involving stitching).
From what I'd read, I assumed that with a zoom lens I'd have to establish three different nodal points for a range of focal lengths, specifically 32, 44, and 64mm.
The RRS equipment I used was the basic gimbal with leveling base (PG-01), and the short nodal slider (MPR-CL). The short slider is barely long enough for this body and lens, so the MPR-CL-II slider could be a better choice. The GFX and zoom are just under the small gimbal's eight pound load capacity. It's stable except for one problem: I have the knob rather than the clamp type of camera mount on the gimbal, and it's difficult to tighten the screw enough to prevent vertical sagging. I suppose the clamp version would work better?
The results I achieved – though I double-checked – surprised me. At 64 and 44mm, the rear offset was the same, 95mm – which falls right at the extension limit of RRS's short nodal slider. 32mm would require a little more adjustment, but since it's not recommended to do panos at one's widest focal lengths, it looks like I can leave the setup permanently at 95mm.
What concerns me is that RRS's data for nodal points with Canon and Nikon zoom lenses suggest I should have found more variation at different focal lengths. So I'm wondering what's up: Something about the GF 32-64, or one more instance on my part of User Error?
Any advice or confirmation will be welcome,
Kirk
After trying primes, and despite a longstanding prejudice against zooms, I've settled on the 32-64 as my lens-of-choice for the kind of landscape photography I do (at fairly close or 'personal' distances, and often involving stitching).
From what I'd read, I assumed that with a zoom lens I'd have to establish three different nodal points for a range of focal lengths, specifically 32, 44, and 64mm.
The RRS equipment I used was the basic gimbal with leveling base (PG-01), and the short nodal slider (MPR-CL). The short slider is barely long enough for this body and lens, so the MPR-CL-II slider could be a better choice. The GFX and zoom are just under the small gimbal's eight pound load capacity. It's stable except for one problem: I have the knob rather than the clamp type of camera mount on the gimbal, and it's difficult to tighten the screw enough to prevent vertical sagging. I suppose the clamp version would work better?
The results I achieved – though I double-checked – surprised me. At 64 and 44mm, the rear offset was the same, 95mm – which falls right at the extension limit of RRS's short nodal slider. 32mm would require a little more adjustment, but since it's not recommended to do panos at one's widest focal lengths, it looks like I can leave the setup permanently at 95mm.
What concerns me is that RRS's data for nodal points with Canon and Nikon zoom lenses suggest I should have found more variation at different focal lengths. So I'm wondering what's up: Something about the GF 32-64, or one more instance on my part of User Error?
Any advice or confirmation will be welcome,
Kirk
Last edited: