jack_lo_..._t_o Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I think I have a good idea, but this forum has some pretty knowledgeable contributors who might fill in the numbers for me. I have 2 Nikkor 35mm wide angles; a 2.8 and a 2.0. I also have a 2.8 Zuiko. When I mount the Nikkors on a Nikkormat FT and view, the width of the field of view is about 16" narrower than the Zuiko, at 8'. Both prisms have 97% coverage, so it ain't that. My guess is the Nikkors are true 35s, whereas the Zui is more like a 32 or even a 30. Does anyone have the stats? The 2.8 Nikkor is for sale by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Photodo measured 36mm for both Nikkors. No idea about the Zuiko, but your measurements would indicate that it's around 31mm indeed, which sounds awfully off (and especially off in the wrong direction). 8ft away is a pretty small magnification, too small to indicate a big change in focal length due to "advanced" focusing mechanisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 They cannot be so far off. Something else is wrong. A 35mm lens must be within 33-37mm, otherwise it would not be called 35. It can be that Nikon is somewhat wrong one way and the Olympus the other way, but no way more than 2-3mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip_williams Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Do comparisons of FOV on-the-film, not in the finder. That will be a much better place to do actual measurements. I wouldn't trust a comparison of finder magnification. Also, I think that the FT finders were 90%, weren't they? Skip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 That would explain it, Skip. But my Nikon System Handbook, by "Moose" Peterson, says 97%. And I certainly don't get that much more on my negative than what I see in the viewfinder--I think. Might be worth a test run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 "...by "Moose" Peterson..." And there's your other dubious variable. ;> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 Good one Lex! I was playing straightman for whoever could make a laugh out of it but it is his real name. Moose that he is tho', he is wrong, according to Photography in Malaysia, which claims 92% coverage, and maybe that's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xato Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 According to Modern Photo, the 35/2.8 is actually 35.1 mm. http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mp-zuiko-tests.txt Warren PS: But the 35/2 is the "real" 35mm as it is 35.0 mm. PPS. What does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_oleson Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It's not easy to measure a noninterchangeable screen, but the one in my Nikkormat FT appears to measure about 32.6mm long. On a 36mm frame, this is 90.5%. As I recall, when introduced the OM finder gave a larger proportion of the negative image than almost anything else on the market, save the Nikon F's 100%, so it's not a surprise to me that the Nikkormat would come in noticeably smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Yup, I have to be careful when switching between my OM-1 and Nikon F3HP. I sometimes forget that there's no wiggle room with the F3HP so I need to remind myself to leave a little breathing room around most subjects when shooting slides, a little less for negative film. With the OM-1 the view is just about right so I rarely cut off the top of someone's head or bottom of their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 There is some amount of variation in lenses, so I wouldn't trust any measurement of the FOV of a single lens. It'd be better to have an average of a dozen or more lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now