steve_phillipps

I have a Sinar F2 and need to clean the spring-loaded film holder unit. I see it's held in at the back by 4 allen bolts and it looks like I can just remove these to allow the spring to just hang there and the piece holding the ground glass to be detached. Just a bit worried as it's a strong spring and don't want to not be able to get it back on again!

<p>On 8x10.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I have the single-coated version of the 165mm f8 Super Angulon which has a 105mm thread. The Schneider Centre Filter V is apparently for the 165 f8 but has 110mm thread (which the multi-coated version has). Can't seem to find any centre filters with a 105mm thread. I was under the impression that the IVa was the right one but that's 95mm thread. Any ideas?<br>

Thanks, Steve</p>

 

<p>Seems like Nikon are even later than usual to the party - experimenting with fluorite in telephotos - wow, 40 years after Canon!<br>

Even the idea of an 800 f5.6 is 5 years after Canon and they made a bit of a big deal out of its revolutionary introduction. It's a shame, in the good ole days the 2 companies were neck and neck, but now Nikon is light years behind.<br>

And that price tag - crazy.<br>

Steve (a Nikon user and fan, always have been)</p>

 

<p>I welcome it too, good addition to the lineup. But...you have to say that it is another occasion where Nikon seems to be so far behind the game - as Shun says they haven't provided much in the way of specs and it seems to me likely that it's still a bit of a way off from hitting the streets. How long has Canon's 800 5.6 been out?<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Just got an email about this <a href="http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/newsitem.php?id=349&pg=1&mem=&arc=0">http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/newsitem.php?id=349&pg=1&mem=&arc=0</a> Nikon developing an 800mm f5.6 lens. Good for sure, why not, but they call it "ground breaking" - not quite sure how they work that out seeing that Canon has had one for a couple of years now and the Nikon is still only being developed!<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks Ray, it's going back on Monday. Not sure I'd ever trust or be happy with a repair that appears that drastic. Thanks for your expertise.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks guys. Trouble is once you see it you kind of want it then! But no way I'd keep anything if was even 10% below par let alone like this. I have found another one but it's £5000, plus it doesn't have the 1.4x converter with it. Are they hard to come by?<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>I must say "re-grind" element sounds quite severe.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>The repair doc says "second element from front had severe chipping due to knock or drop, holding ring was bent, re-grind and re-coat element".<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks Steve the Sage, good to have your input! I shot at 1/125th to 1/500th as I'm aware of the vibration issues (although have you seen my tripod? 14kg there!)<br>

"Hazing" sounds pretty much spot on to me.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>This is at f11, which is much better but still very poor, and especially so towards the edges.</p><div></div>

<p>These test shots are only poor printer scans from a 5x7" print so the quality's not good, but it does give an idea of how they look. The first one is wide open, the second at f11.<br />Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks Walter, well if it performs as badly as it looks through the viewfinder you're welcome to it!<br /> Seriously though, it is a nice lens, fairly well built, I always liked side focus wheels (although the one on this is not super smooth but OK).<br /> I'll try to post some test shots if I can get them scanned.<br /> Steve</p>

<p>Hopefully my O'Connor video head should be a match for even this monster!</p><div></div>

<p>Using the pan arm to support the body</p><div></div>

<p>Managed to get hold of an 800mm f6.7 - hell of a lens!<br>

Unfortunately the image through the camera is incredibly soft. I've got this on approval so no probs, but with it came a repair note stating that it had had the second from front element damaged and repaired so I'm assuming this is probably the reason. BUT, one thing that did occur to me was that it doesn't have a filter in its rear slot and just wondering if this is part of the optical path and not having it in place could be the reason for softeness?<br />Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>That should read "now" much much less than on the Nikon.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>All good points Andrew, will check into Park Cameras too.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I did consider in-camera processing etc., but did these in RAW to try to rule this out as much as possible, but I am aware of course that the Canon and Nikon will yield slightly different looks.<br>

I have done AF Fine Tune and the 400 did benefit from +5 or so, this shot is with it at its best. Cameras were set down on a solid surface, so steadier than even on a tripod, static target, and shutter speeds up around the 1/1000th sec mark so I don't think there could be much in the way of user error.<br>

To be honest sample variation was my main thought, and when you spend £6500 on a lens you don't want to feel you've got a duff one!<br />Don't think there'll be a new 400 2.8 from Nikon for a while, but Canon has just announced a new one - £11,500!!!!!! <br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>On the DP site the Nikon 400 looks atrocious! While the Canon 400 looks like the best lens ever made - for instance the Canon even with a 2x converter looks way better than the Nikon bare!<br>

Steve<br>

ps just tried to post a link to the DP site and it wasn't allowed - guess they've been blacklisted (quite right too!)</p>

<p>I'm not being swayed by the review at Digital Picture site but their findings are the same as mine for this lens.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>And here's the Canon</p><div></div>

<p>Here are a couple of crops - I know all things are not even at all (one is a Canon 1ds mkiii and 300mm and the other is a D3 at 400mm)!!!<br>

Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>I'm using a D3, not a D3x. I have the 200 f2 VR and that always looks stellar. The only other long tele that I can compare it to is an old FD 500 f4.5 that's adapted for Nikon, and that's comfortably sharper than the Nikon wide open and even when both are at f4.5 it's sharper and more contrasty than the Nikon.<br>

This is not to say that it looks awful, but you know what it's like when you pixel peep and side by side!<br>

Steve</p>