That's good to know guys.
I guess if it's mounted square for f2.8, and 'full tilt' by f22 it makes sense that it wouldn't vignette oddly or break frame much if at all.
Sean Mills wrote:
That's good to know guys.
I guess if it's mounted square for f2.8, and 'full tilt' by f22 it makes sense that it wouldn't vignette oddly or break frame much if at all.
Thanks!
If the petal hood interfered with the corners when rotated, causing "mechanical vignetting", aperture would be irrelevant. No amount of stopping down could cure it.
cogitech wrote:
If the petal hood interfered with the corners when rotated, causing "mechanical vignetting", aperture would be irrelevant. No amount of stopping down could cure it.
I'm not sure I agree with that Paul. When I used to shoot LF one of the last things I'd do would be to walk round to the front of the camera and squint up through the lens and see if I could clearly see the whole corner of the film (ground glass) with nothing (bellows or hood) interfering. It was pretty easy to see that the problem was better at small apertures.
I hope my stick drawing below illustrates what I'm trying to say.
Now for another question - either Mark or anyone else - can this adapter be used with other Nikon lenses or is this one strictly for the 14-24mm f2.8 lens.
mcbroomf wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that Paul. When I used to shoot LF one of the last things I'd do would be to walk round to the front of the camera and squint up through the lens and see if I could clearly see the whole corner of the film (ground glass) with nothing (bellows or hood) interfering. It was pretty easy to see that the problem was better at small apertures.
I hope my stick drawing below illustrates what I'm trying to say.
This does illustrate the point. I can see if the mechanical vignetting was marginal that a change of aperture might help, but in more extreme situations where a hood is simply too long or not aligned correctly, I don't think stopping down would do much to improve the situation.
In mechanical vignetting from the hood, f22 would actually more accurately (sharply) show where the hood was in the image, whereas at faster apertures, it might show up as a more diffuse vignetting.
Take a rubber hood fully extended on a wide angle lens, and step it down--you should see the effect in the viewfinder.
That said, in this case, the rotation seems really minor, and by all accounts I've never seen an aggressively profiled hood (eg, one that comes right to the edge of the image) from any manufacturer, so we're likely talking about plenty of clearance.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
That said, in this case, the rotation seems really minor, and by all accounts I've never seen an aggressively profiled hood (eg, one that comes right to the edge of the image) from any manufacturer, so we're likely talking about plenty of clearance.
That was my assumption. Thanks for the info about mechanical vignetting guys. Good reading material
Like Mike and Mark, said there are no issues with the hood.
If you look at my picture of the lens with adapter on it which shows
the top view, you will see three color dots. Those dots are the markings
for f2.8, f8, f22. So you can see there is not much range of rotation between
f2.8 and f22. The adapter fits snugly to the lens and the camera and there is
no play or wiggle. There is plenty of resistance in the rotation to make sure the f-stop doesn't
get changed accidentally while shooting.
I assume this adapter would work with all G and non G Nikon lens as well, but Mark can correct me on that if I am wrong.
Thank you very much Mark for pulling off this new adapter design effort and I am very happy
with the quality of my adapter and its performance. I will still be interested in the lever version for those times when I want exact control of the f-stop between f2.8 and f8.
Mark, Is that precise control guaranteed by the lever version?
Maybe you could put some of this information above in a FAQ section for this adapter on your website?
Thanks for the update and pictures, very nice set up! The only problem I see is the edge sharpness is not what I thought it would be, just look at the soft bird in the upper right. If it helps, I will take the lens and adapter off your hands for a few hundred bucks. Just kidding! I'm getting a little desperate for my adapter to arrive. The lens and camera must turn a few heads.
Dennis
Nice try!
Hope you and all the other people who ordered early get there adapter soon. It must be tough since you sold some of your wide angles like the 17-40 in anticipation of getting the adapter awhile back.If you have the 14-24 lens already and need to use it for a shoot you could try getting a standard Nikon-EOS adapter like a FotoDiox pro for ~$70 and use a paper matchstick to prop the aperture lever over to around f8 position or wherever you want it. If you don't have to change the f-stop much while shooting then you can tolerate it. I used a Fotodiox non-pro adapter and lived with till I got my adapter. I think the non-pro version was a little too thin, so the infinity focus was not as good as with a wider proper adapter like Mark's. The focus confirmation helps the manual focusing alot as it gets in tight range of sharpest focus and I can use Liveview zoomed in to make any very tiny adjustments if necessary. Just doing a few handheld comparison shots at f8 and f2.8 against my 16-35mk1, the 14-24 was sharper in the corners.
Sorry you don't want to take me up on the offer. Thanks for the info on adapters, but I have been holding off getting the 14-24 until I get the adapter. I like to get 2 or 3 lenses and do a test to see if there are any variations in quality. I found Canon to have some major variations. The 12-24 seems to be just plain sharper all over from your and Mark's tests, there seems to be an enhanced clarity to that lens. It will be great to be able to put a wide on the MK3 and not have anything to worry about as far as sharpness goes.
I don't miss the 17-40 at all but have found my 24-70 is just great on the MK3.
Now for another question - either Mark or anyone else - can this adapter be used with other Nikon lenses or is this one strictly for the 14-24mm f2.8 lens.
By default, they're EXIF coded for the 14-24mm f2.8, but the same adaptor could be used to control the aperture of any G Series lens: including the 10.5mm fisheye, 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm. With a small modification, it could also be use for conventional Nikon F lenses, but for that application, you may as well buy a standard Fotodiox Pro or Cameraquest unit.
hubsand wrote:
By default, they're EXIF coded for the 14-24mm f2.8, but the same adaptor could be used to control the aperture of any G Series lens: including the 10.5mm fisheye, 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm. With a small modification, it could also be use for conventional Nikon F lenses, but for that application, you may as well buy a standard Fotodiox Pro or Cameraquest unit.
Has anyone used the 10.5mm with this adapter on a canon body? I would love to see the results.
Also, i assume that the adapter can be used on 1.3 and 1.6 crop bodies with a 14-24?
I am not familiar with Nikon fisheye lens but I believe it was designed for the DX line. The Nikkor 24-70mm is great lens and maybe, again just maybe, a tad better than Canon's but you loose AF, auto aperture, etc. and it is quite a bit more expensive than Canon 24-70mm. The Nikkor 70-200 VR is reputed to have quite severe vignetting and corner performance issues on FF and you loose the VR feature, in addition to loosing AF and auto aperture. Plus two of Canon models have the IS. At this point, the 14-24 is the best and maybe the only candidate for this purpose, at least on a Canon FF body. Not only because of its performance but simply Canon doesn't have any zoom in that range... I'd rather get 2mm extra on the wide end than 11mm on the longer end and I am covered with my 24-70/24-105 anyway.
I wish I had more time to really play with that lens and do some good testing on it. I've been traveling a lot lately for work, and just haven't had much time to shoot since I got the adapter about two weeks ago.
I probably took about 20 shots with the adapter, and from those shots, I can tell that this lens is definitely very good, just as Mark has pointed out on his site. One thing I really like - it produces deep dark blues in the skies - moreso than my Canon 16-35 II. It's also clearly sharper in the 16mm-20mm range than the Canon, although I saw less of a difference from about 22mm-24mm.
If you shoot ultra-wide landscapes, this Nikon 14-24 G is a pretty special lens, and Canon just doesn't have anything in it's class.
