christiaan_phleger___honol

<p>Not sure if this will help but I posted a series of film images on my blog with the MS Optical Sonnetar 1.1 and the effect of the coma adjustment. The adjustment, while somewhat fiddly, IMO overcomes the challenges of a very fast Sonnar design.<br>

http://four-silver-atoms.com/2013/08/10/ms-optical-sonnetar-50mm-f1-1-bokeh-test/</p>

 

<p>I wonder if the Rollei PQ version of this lens has the same baffle?</p>

<p>Mine! four-silver-atoms.com. I shoot Rollei TLR, Rollei 6008i, Mamiya C-330, Baby Graphic with 6x9 and 6x6 and various others. Enjoy</p>

<p>Unscrew the shaft that is in the large slot. then twist the whole front group out</p>

<p>I'll chime in for HC-110. Seems to do well for older emulsions. I had some 70's-80's era PXP 120 that worked exceptionally better than expected, and like John Shiver pointed out, base fog could be an issue, and in that case, Rodinal makes my strong 2nd choice, especially if you are used to using it.</p><div></div>

<p>Yes. Try that.</p>

<p>Yep, hood is too big for the lens. The stock hood is much shorter and wider.</p>

<p>That is a big shift. That is also a big (!!!) sign when the lens board doesn't sit flush. I'd check first that the lens board (where both sets sit on) is flat and true. That very well could be the problem, usually cause by impact or trying to pull off the lens groups without undoing the spring latch. <br>

Don't touch the factory set posts. Don't do the mirror, unless there is clear evidence that the mirror has been altered (the red Loc-tite style thread holder is off or misaligned) . I would re-Check the spacing of the lens pairs, by unscrewing the front of the taking lens group, (this is usually where a tech would place a shim, Mamiya factory shims are brass and very thin). Swap the shims around or remove them.<br>

I would take the effort to test the body with film. Setting up a focussing screen on the film rails creates more potential errors than solves IMO. Good luck!<br>

The originator of the demise of the mismatched lens pair, Christiaan.</p>

<p>OF COURSE IT WORKS. You did the correct method, which is Removing the screen assembly from the frame. BUT your title will continue to mislead people who think you can exchange them *in frame*, which will not work without focussing errors.</p>

<p>BTW Rodeo Joe, even the old versions of the 24mm f/2.8 have the CRC. </p>

<p>Another try.</p><div></div>

<p>Keith B is right. The six element 2.8 is a different lens, one that even Bjorn missed (he notes the later Ais 5 element and the earlier 7 element non-Ai). I love mine, its a nice compliment to my 35mm 1.4. Low distortion, good bokeh.</p>

<div></div>

<p>That was for the F not the F2. Sounds like the mirror box has been removed and not shimmed right when re-installed. </p>

<p>I have the 20mm F4 and the HN-1 works fine without filter, tiny amount in the corners at f16-22 with filter. Still looking for the HN-14.</p>

<p>I'd start at 1:50 shot at 1600, not too much agitation but not stand, just to get an idea with what you're working with. I'd shoot the same bracketed scene and do at least one short snip to play with the times and then you could refine from there for the rest of the film.<br>

Nice shot Larry, dig the granularity. </p>

<p>CA is much better handled with a D700/D3 sensor than a D2 series with this lens. Whether or not its enough is up to you. If you can use the in camera Jpegs than it improves as well.</p>

<p>Find an old Nikkormat. One has existed in the back of my car for at least 3 years, with a 105mm 2.5, rolling around loaded with B&W. You never know when you need it, and the Nikkormat is a real brick.</p>

<p>I need one in chrome and one in black painted brass to match my M4's.</p>

<p>Kelly, I really appreciate your explainations. I do have a well rounded optical knowledge, so you're preaching to the choir, so to speak. I was merely pointing out that in the Nikon article written by a Nikon optical engineer and Nikon Corp. optical historian he states that the 2nd optical formula for the 105mm 2.5 is a Xenotar type, which I find odd since he more clearly could have said 'Double Gauss' and saved us all a bit of brain power. I do find your car analogy quite amusing.</p>

<p>Yes, Kelly you are very right, but the OP mentioned that the 105 Nikkor is a Planar.</p>

<p>Yeah, me neither. Nikon's own optical historian claims it as a Xenotar type rather than a Gauss, so I went with that. Maybe its from the Rollei angle, those guys are known to 'discuss' back and forth about the merits of the Rollei TLR Planar vs Xenotar. Wish I still had a copy of Kingslake's book handy, shows early Planar vs Xenotar differences.</p>

<p>Planar is a Zeiss trademarked lens name. Their are a few other Nikkors that could be close to the Zeiss Planar design, I think the older Nikkor H 50mm is pretty close. But, that above quote is incorrect, like kind of way off, the 105mm is a Xenotar type, 5 element with one cemented pair, so totally NOT a "symmetrical, six element air spaced" . Read more at http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n05_e.htm</p>

<p>Well, a 1.4 converter gets you in the range, but just a 300 is very effective from a mid-field position. From what you could think of as the 50 yard line you get a good chance of a great shot if they rip up your sideline during a fast play, especially with that fast AF that you got. From the goal line, I tend to prefer the 400+1.4 or even 2x. I shoot quite a bit of Polo during the season and have shot it for 12+ years and much of the best shots come down to luck, as in the play happened in my 'zone' rather than 'way over there'. </p><div></div>

<p>Oops sized wrong. Try this. </p><div></div>

<p>Nice. I tend to prefer the Ais 400 2.8, mostly with the 1.4. Most polo action seems to happen 'over there', especially when the horses are at speed. A very fun sport to shoot. </p>