ray .

The Hasselblad finder isn't perfect, but it gets the job done, depending on what you need. I haven't used the Voigtlander finder but it seems to me the main choice between the 2 finders must be whether an angle finder is better for your use or not. As far as diopter correction, unless your eyesight is bad enough to make a difference, you're estimating focus distance with a Hasselblad SWC camera anyway.

Hmm, strange. I can't imagine what equipment that would be, except maybe… my glasses when I took them off got in front of the lens. I generally hold them hanging from my mouth when looking through the finder. Makes sense shooting from waist level, whereas it's not a problem with a 35mm camera that's held higher up. First time it's happened with the Hasselblad too, but I think you've got it; that must be it. Thanks Niels.

Hello everyone My number one question here is: What may have caused the clouded area in the lower right portion of the first scanned Portra negative I'm posting here? It can be seen within the negative itself (not on the surface) so it's not a scanning issue. It wasn't a physical thing at the scene if I'm not crazy. You may notice a slight overall magenta color cast from the Portra expired in 2013 and kept frozen the shot was taken with, but I've read that's quite typical. However, one question about that: Is a color cast for expired film more noticeable with a photo exposed in overcast than one shot in bright sunlight? The 2nd photo is also 2013 expired Portra that was kept frozen, but it's from a different roll. I also wonder if the 60mm Hasselblad Distagon CF lens with a little more than average dust in the glass could be having any effect, but it looks pretty clean here in the sunny photo and in another b&w sunny shot from that lens, so the lens is probably fine. But again, What is that ghost?

If I'm remembering correctly I got one of the last 9000ED scanners Nikon sold new, then sold it along with my medium format cameras about 10 years ago, only to re-purchase a 501cm and 80 Planar 4 years ago. Selling the scanner was as much a mistake as the cameras, since it was near new. The 8000ED I have now I got from a guy who services them. I've never had any real problems with them or the Nikon film scanners I have for 35mm. It's a slow process, but I enjoy scanning- kind of like being in the darkroom watching a print emerge, just without the fumes… Knock on wood this scanner keeps running as I gear up to shoot and give it a little more exercise than it's had for a few years. Thanks again

Tom, yes in fact the cut was close to that edge on both frames with the magenta artifact, so you’re probably right. I use a Nikon 800 ED scanner with glass holder and have never noticed that issue before. Maybe I should be using a mask but I’ve never looked into how they work. Thanks orsetto for the hood info and photos. Looks like maybe the best bet is ordering a brand new generic hood straight from China? Looks as if at least one eBay seller of those is reputable. Otherwise relatively affordable ones are used.

Oh, here's one more mystery: I was also testing the SWC/M on the same roll and shot the same building with that, and also with the 60mm on the 501cm. On these 2 frames only, you see a slight magenta fringe along the bottom of the frame. It's not on the building. The top shot (SWC/M) was frame 7 on the roll, the one below (60mm) was frame 10. None of the other frames had the fringe. I haven't used that lab before, and also the Portra expired 2013 but has been in the freezer. 🤔

Say everyone, sorry for the slow response here, but it apparently was the 60/80 hood causing the vignetting. I ended up shooting a roll of Portra to get it back next day, since my previous b&w test roll got lost in the mail on the way to the lab across country. First shot on the new test roll was with the hood on, taking a photo of the front of my white garage with overcast sky above, then repeating the shot with the hood off. I can post both of those if someone wants to see the comparison for some reason, but here's one of the shots in the roll that were shot with hood off, showing clean corners and no vignetting… I am a little interested in the glare off the street sign, thinking it's probably normal for this lens, but I don't recall seeing it in the ground glass, maybe because I was in a hurry to get to the local lab before they closed. I'll take Arthur's advice and look for a 38-60 hood, as I can use it for my new used SWC/M as well……. I'll check back to see if there is any further discussion or questions. Thanks for all the responses!

So today I started a roll and made one shot with the hood on, then continued on shooting with no hood. Switched off the to SWC/M body I was testing also, so the two cameras shared rolls of both Tri-X and Portra…. I'll report back in about a week with the results.

I will try removing the hood, but here are a couple samples from the roll showing the vignetting. In the 1st photo there was more available light; in the 2nd sunlight was dimming, so I no doubt opened the lens a little more with a slower shutter speed. This tells me maybe it's the lens, not a hood obstruction?

I can post examples later, but on each shot of a roll of Tri-x I tested there is consistent or identical vignetting on all 4 corners shot with the ex condition Hasselblad 60mm f/3.5 Distagon CF I recently received. I’ve used one of these lenses before that had zero vignetting on any photo. The exposures were generally in the f/4 to f/9.5 range, none wide open, but that shouldn’t matter anyway with this lens. The lens has a small mark on both front and back elements toward the center, I wouldn’t think would affect anything, but maybe? I used the 60/80 hood, which is the kind of hood I used before with the other 60. Any ideas? Could it be caused by anything other than the lens? Thanks…

I ended up sending in my OM-4 to John and I'm pretty excited about getting it back in a few weeks, hopefully ready to run. After he received it he confirmed my camera has the latest updated circuitry before Olympus went to the OM-4T and Ti. Mainly because of the diopter correction capability the viewfinder will be much better for me than with the OM-1n. I also actually like the smaller image of the finder because I find it easier to see the whole composition of the photo with it. With all the sophisticated metering system I'll probably be using it with a hand-held incident meter, which has been my preference for several years now. If all is well I'll give the spot meter averaging method a whirl too and see how it does, just for fun.

What happened to this thread? Appears to have had several posts deleted. Some sort of glitch in the new format?

Michael Freeman, I see one of the few listings in the US selling a Japanese version saying the downside of the lens is they all get oily aperture blades if not serviced. That could be why the original lens in question is assumed by the seller to have been serviced multiple times. I wonder if that coincides with your experience and if it also pertains to the American version. The focus ring on the American version is apparently plastic instead of rubber, and the lens focuses to 0.6 meters as opposed to 0.45. Rockwell claims the mechanics on the American version are inferior to the Japanese version.

See Ken Rockwell's site re the lens. I'm not sure I take his word on everything, but he's pretty knowledgeable re Nikon.

I didn't say it was $200. Thanks everybody, I'll skip this one.

Yeah, have to say this was my main concern. Like, who worked on it? By "vintage" I just meant 40 years old.

Thanks Mary. If you search "Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 ai-s manual lens" Nikon produced different versions of this, not all the same. The versions produced for the American market were different than those for Japan, for example. So a casual check might not give an accurate assessment. Also most sellers only do a cursory examination of the lens, mostly based on cosmetics of the exterior, not on extensive examination of the internal optics. They also answer questions in a general way, not in extensive detail, so they might not even notice or mention these kinds of flaws.

Hi Folks I'm looking to buy a copy of the 40-ish year old Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 ai-s manual lens, a lens with a great reputation because of its sharpness, compact size and light weight. The particular version of this lens was made for the Japanese market, and most available are being sold from Japan. A seller who is very thorough in his description, and when answering my questions gets into even more detail, says on inspection with an LED light that his lens has several 'dot scratches' or 'spot flaws' in the coating surface. In photos they look like specks of dust or round dots. He says the cause of the scratches is not known, but are often caused by corrosion marks from mold or scratches on the coating during cleaning. He assumes the lens has been disassembled several times because of cleaning marks inside the lens. He says however, that none of this, at least now, will affect image quality. Since most descriptions of vintage lenses are much less detailed than what he's provided to me, I'm figuring there are a lot of 40 year old Nikon lenses out there with these kinds of flaws. Or not. If the lens performs fine for 5-10 more years, I'm good with that. These lenses go for less than $200. Should I buy this one? The seller has perfect feedback, with return policy, though return ship is to Japan. I'd be using the lens purely for shooting on film.

Thank SCL. John Hermanson’s website was last updated 5 years ago and his last post on photonet was 2019. Does anyone know what happened to him? I just emailed him.

I just pulled my OM-1N out of the cupboard after having put it away several years ago, I think but don’t remember for sure the shutter was starting to hang up, but also I felt I couldn’t use it because there are no diopter correction lenses for the viewfinder. Yesterday I realized I could use it with my glasses on, but also without my glasses because I can line up the split image accurately even with the overall view being a little blurry. Firing the shutter about 10o times, it stuck maybe 4 times, at 1/125th and a few times at slow speeds.So far though it hasn’t hung up at 1/500 or 1/1000, which is almost always what I shoot at anyway. There aren’t many OM-1N cameras on eBay in good working order. It seems to be a camera that has broken down and can’t be fixed, for lack of parts, as John H mentioned back in 2007 (on this thread or another). Unfortunate because it’s a great camera that uses fantastic Zuiko lenses.

I'm figuring out whether to use the 35mm Loxia on A7Rii for that focal length or keep my M240 for the 35 (as well as 28) (Summicrons). The 50mm Summicron does quite well on the A7Rii. Not sure if I want to go to the trouble of testing a 50 Voigtlander apo-lanthar to compare. Though full communication lens to camera body would be nice, it's not necessary. I think I'm finding the best way to use a Metabones adapter is keep the lens and adapter attached together when changing lenses. The lens/adapter unit can be stored with a Sony bottom lens cap attached.

Just to follow up, the 35mm Loxia I obtained this week communicates f/stop to the camera such that brightness level in the viewfinder stays consistent when changing aperture in aperture priority mode, whereas with the Metabones adapted lens the finder darkens or lightens. Still useable with an adapted lens, just not ideal. That resolves most of the issue, and in sunny or contrasty conditions, zebra is helpful. Today I shot a few sample shots with RAW+jpg, adjusting both in post, and about all I can say is the results were different- neither better than the other. If a scene seems special or extraordinary enough, I may opt for shooting RAW+jpg to have a comparison and additional option. With the Leica (if I keep it) I'll continue to shoot RAW because on that camera the jpgs are clearly inferior.

OK wait… I wasn't totally crazy I don't think. My lens adapted with a Metabones adapter, is not fully communicating the aperture settings to the EVF. So shooting in aperture priority, when I change aperture on the lens, the viewfinder darkens or lightens accordingly. Even though shutter speed automatically compensates for the change in aperture for the exposure, that information does not translate to the viewfinder brightness. Do I have that right?!

Well, I think I finally figured out what the problem was, and not surprisingly I suppose, it was one setting I overlooked. One of the first things I did with the camera was to set viewfinder brightness to +2, because set zeroed out the view looked so dimmed down in sunlight. Since I'd done that, what was most noticeable to me was shooting in very low light, where I'd end up setting exposure compensation to -3 to try to match the viewfinder to the scene. I was trying to overcome the extra brightness I had set the viewfinder to, so the exposure would end up a stop or two under from what it needed to be. SCL saying "It sounds like one or more settings are off" was exactly right. Sorry guys! Quite off topic, I've decided shooting JPG instead of RAW on the A7R2 may be what I will do. I noticed shooting RAW + jpg and processing the RAW files with Raw Therapee that the jpg files from the camera looked sharper with improved contrast than what I got from processing RAW. The first year or two after I got a Canon 5D in 2007 I was just shooting jpg and was never disappointed with the images. Then I read about RAW and assumed from then on that was the only way to go. With the Leica M240 the jpgs are clearly inferior to converted RAW files, so with that camera I'll continue shooting RAW. I also did a comparison on the Sony on a tripod, shooting jpg extra fine, fine, and standard and I can't say I see any difference between the 3 quality settings at full resolution. On a Sunday outing I shot jpg fine and am quite happy with the quality. So I don't know, perhaps, depending on the camera, Ken Rockwell was right all along?! I can see if you're doing professional work you might want to shoot RAW at least as a back-up and in case exposures are off, but for me, until further notice, I'll take the smaller jpg files with high resolution that can still be tweaked…

Thanks SCL and rodeo joe. I’ve been through the menus a dozen times and think I have the most pertinent settings set. I still have a few that seem to be of lesser importance to check on. The noise in the finder seems only to be when ISO is set high -1600 or 3200, shooting in extremely dim light, where I am trying to match the exposure to the dimness of the scene. * will check on the firmware