Just out of interest the Nikon HN-3 hood looks like it might fit the bill and available from China for a few dollars post free.

Dave

Yep I was just looking at the HN-3 type offerings. Looks quite promising

I may just have to give one a try. If I do I shall report back when it arrives.

Max

Empire wrote:
Yep I was just looking at the HN-3 type offerings. Looks quite promising

I may just have to give one a try. If I do I shall report back when it arrives.

Max

Max

I ordered one from the States http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200383796010&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT should do the trick.

Dave

Sam N wrote:
you2 wrote:
So the question is how does this lens compare to the 35f2 ze


Here's one very obvious comparison.


It appears that size does indeed matter.

Sorry I haven`t got upload turned on.

I took a few into the sun with tree when the clouds cleared today, maybe I`m doing something wrong but I`m seeing just what I would expect wide open with the sun in the frame.

http://www.pbase.com/davechilvers/voigt_into_the_sun_f2

Comments please

Dave

For F-EOS - Fotodiox Pro
For OM-EOS - Fotodiox Standard

That looks odd, but I'm not sure if I'd call that coma. It's easier to see with point light sources.

you2 wrote:
So the question is how does this lens compare to the 35f2 ze


I have both, I really like my Zeiss but it is the ZF version not ZE. With my copies the Zeiss has a little bit more vignetting at F2 than the Voigtlander. The Voigtlander appears to me a tad sharper at F2. After that I find no noticable differences. Though the Zeiss gives a 3D look.

The difference for me comes in the FOV 35-40 isn't much but for landscape I prefer the Zeiss and people the Voigtlander.

I can see it a bit in this one:

Ok I just looked at mine again and I am SURE it is coma.

Looking at the point lights between a few of the flowers and the fork between two branches I can clearly see the 'boomerang' shape of coma around the point.

The best place to see it is at the point where two larger branches cross over roughly located at the top right 3rds intersection. Right in the outer crux there is a strong point with the dark branches on either side which shows the coma wings.

As for the odd effect, it must be caused by flowers further out of focus and blown out causing coma to overlap on the visible branches and flowers.

Mystery solved for me!

Empire wrote:
Ok I just looked at mine again and I am SURE it is coma.

Looking at the point lights between a few of the flowers and the fork between two branches I can clearly see the 'boomerang' shape of coma around the point.

The best place to see it is at the point where two larger branches cross over roughly located at the top right 3rds intersection. Right in the outer crux there is a strong point with the dark branches on either side which shows the coma wings.

As for the odd effect, it must be caused by flowers further out of focus and blown out causing coma to overlap on the visible branches and flowers.

Mystery solved for me!

Max

Certainly an unusual effect, I`m not so up on all the technical terms for lens aberrations but I would want to shoot some other stuff to confirm what was happening. That shot of mine that you posted here was quite impressive flare wise when you consider the sun was directly in the frame. I know a lot of you guys and girls like to shoot wide open and it`s not a thing I usually do so haven`t gotten into the problems that occur.

jcolwell wrote:
dave chilvers wrote:
Empire

I meant to ask you if your Ultron goes past infinity?

Mine goes well past using a cheapo Nik-Eos adapter on my 5d2. I`ve just ordered a happypage V5 adapter to see if that might be better and am hoping with the micro adjust in the adapter I can get it closer.

Dave

Dave, my Ultron goes well past infinity on my 5D as well. I'm using a relatively new style of adapter for the Ultron that doesn't have the little square tab to lift the lock pin that older generic ones have, rather it has a lever-spring lock pin mechanism. I just tried the Ultron with the old square-tab adapter, and it gets infinity at infinity. Here's shots of the two adapter styles: the new one at left and in the second photo, and old one on the right and in the last photo. Please ignore the IQ, as I cranked the levels to show detail in the lever-spring mechanism. I'll keep the old adapter on the Ultron from now on. Jim.


Jim
Put me right please? if the lens focusses past infinity is the adapter too thin or too thick?

dave

If you are going past infinity it is too thin.


I'm pretty effin impressed by the ultron's flare performance. Its probably has the best flare performance of any lens I've ever had the pleasure of pointing at the sun

For some good examples of what coma looks like have a look at this link http://pulsar.la.coocan.jp/lenstest/35mm/35mm.htm

Look at the left and right sides of each wide-open image and you will notice boomerang shaped light spread from the point source lights.

dave chilvers wrote:
Jim
Put me right please? if the lens focusses past infinity is the adapter too thin or too thick?

dave

It's just like an extension tube--if it puts the lens farther out than it wants to be, you'll lose infinity focus completely. So, yes, too thin.

Max

I got some more cable ties

I cut off the first 4.8 mm one. I joined two 142mm x 2.5mm ties, tightened them up gradually ( unevenly)whilst positioning the two nodules just where I wanted them. I already knew where I wanted the top one from before and positioned the bottom one so that I can A. use the top one to push and stop down after focussing and the bottom one to push to open up when needed. In that position I find that when I turn the camera vertical my fingers drop on at least one of the nodules for aperture control. The 2.5 mm ties are not quite as secure as the 4.8 mm one but Heck this is not a hammer but a camera lens and the smaller ties certainly are more in keeping with a camera than the larger 4.8 one.

When I look at the camera with the lens facing me and at F2 the nodules are at 2 o`clock and 8 o`clock.

Some ties are made 203mm x 2.5 and are not long enough so using the two x142mm not only gave me the length I needed but also the two positions that you were talking about.

I got my ties from e bay in the UK so no doubt they will be easy for you to get hold of but if for any reason you did have a problem then just pm me your address in the States and I`ll post a few over.

Dave

dave chilvers wrote:
Just out of interest the Nikon HN-3 hood looks like it might fit the bill and available from China for a few dollars post free.

Dave


The Nikon metal lens hood arrived from heavystar in the US (HN-3) and it fits the bill a treat. It also came with a lens cap that goes on the end of the hood. I did order a Standard metal hood @ 52mm from them and that also works, has a smaller footprint obviously but because it`s more or less the same size as the barrel it doesn`t look quite as nice as the Nikon hood which is more in line with what you would expect with a slight angle outwards.

The happypage v5 adapter arrived today and infinity is at infinity and with the micro adjust set central it appears to very close to the live view in focus. Nice to have the correct exif data as well.

Dave, thanks for the info! looks like I will have to fork out for better adapters
Not for some time though, I kind of lost my source of income at a kind of very bad time

On a posi note, I got a HN-3 as well and it is a nice size on the 40

I hope that your transaction with Heavystar went smoothly... They sold me a Rokkor described as pretty much mint which turned out to be full of fungus and, as I found out last week when I opened it up for a clean, there is haze BETWEEN the glued front doublet... Grrr. And they also would not refund me more than 20% of the price or pay for return shipping. Pretty un-impressed to say the least!!

That's ridiculous Max!? Surely ebay could have stepped in?

I have a lot of F-EOS adapters, PM me your address and I'll send you one.

aw really ??
I love FM

PMing now

I had a go at getting more out of them through erghbay and the end result was about $45 out of the $190 I paid. I thought I could fix it pretty easily and it was WAY sharper than my old copy so I was pretty adamant about getting a 50% refund and ending up with a reasonable bargain.
Unfortunately as I said that turned out to be the wrong choice!
What I have now is a very sharp lens with muddy contrast that just can't be PP'd out.

The worst part was that they completely denied it even after seeing photos and were pretty nasty about the whole affair. I guess that's ebay!

Incidentally I also just got a 'Mint' canon 28-70/3.5-4.5 II with unmentioned oily blades

Empire wrote:
Incidentally I also just got a 'Mint' canon 28-70/3.5-4.5 II with unmentioned oily blades

Did you buy it from reputable seller?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.