usually just aluminum foil, if it's really far off i'll cut an aluminum ring on the lathe though. shockingly, my hawk's adapter and one of my cheap non-helicoid m adapters are dead on infinity. all my slr adapters needed to be shimmed.
Does aliminium foil really have tight enough tolerance to use for this? I am surprised.
I have wanted to spend some time setting up my D800's focusing screen perfectly, but I don't know what I would do about shimming material. I suppose I could measure up some foil and see how that goes.
carstenw wrote:
Does aliminium foil really have tight enough tolerance to use for this? I am surprised.
I have wanted to spend some time setting up my D800's focusing screen perfectly, but I don't know what I would do about shimming material. I suppose I could measure up some foil and see how that goes.
tolerance doesn't matter for shimming, uniformity is what matters. as long as it doesn't crinkle the uniformity (lack of variance between adjacent sections of foil) is just fine, at least on aps-c. i suspect it should be fine on FF as well. it's the actual mount where asymmetry problems are most likely to be an issue.
I used to use steel shim stock that came in .001" sheets for industrial alignments ... might be easier than machining (easy to cut to shape) for those of use without a lathe or mill ... and more "crinkle free" than aluminum foil. A quick look at Grainger shows it in .001, .002, .003, .005 and .010 for under $20 and 316 stainless @ .002" +/- .0001" for $35 ish. Other sources/sizes abound as well.
Tin snips work just fine ... other tools (i.e. heavy duty scissors) maybe too, depending on which thickness you were cutting. Easy stuff to work with though, no worries at distortion that I ever experienced. My cuts were horseshoe / "U" shaped, to be able to slide it in / slip around a bolt without removing the bolt.
I had to have it to be very stable for alignments (.0001" - .002"), as the torque requirements and weight of aligning industrial motors was likely a bit more than we're gonna put on our cameras.
We'd also use aluminum soda cans (in a pinch) if by chance we ran out of shim stock (while out to sea). Pretty uniform (I forget the thickness though) stuff too ... considering. I'd replace the aluminum can with stainless once stock was replenished. Using aluminum cans, I couldn't always hit my goal of <.002" (spec was <.005"), but it would get me by for a while.
Martin, do you know what's wrong with your Voigtländer 35/1.2? I am on the lookout so good to know what to (not) look for. You had one before too I believe so any other insights would be valuable given your scrutinizing eyes even if I get a new one off the shelf.
Havent bought lenses for quite a long time. How sick is it to get the A7 with the 35/2.8 FE having the CY 35/1.4 and then get the Voigt too? Damn Sony.
waterden wrote:
That I shall buy one is beyond question, which though? That will partly depend on how good the A7 IQ is because I don't print large enough for 36mp ...
Dont know who does really. People interested in metro-charts? ;-)
IQ-wise I expect the A7 to be a horse snout in front of the RX1 and in favorable conditions appr. two horse lengths ahead of the Canon 5D2.
wfrank wrote:
Martin, do you know what's wrong with your Voigtländer 35/1.2? I am on the lookout so good to know what to (not) look for. You had one before too I believe so any other insights would be valuable given your scrutinizing eyes even if I get a new one off the shelf.
I don't know if there is something wrong. Just that I don't want to upload crappy shots from a few hours of testing, that would steer people into believing things that was due to me misfocusing or the adapter being crappy.
What I do think is that this lens is not versatile or a good buy if you don't need the speed. This is also based on the experience of my previous copy, and how it behaved on film.
Havent bought lenses for quite a long time. How sick is it to get the A7 with the 35/2.8 FE having the CY 35/1.4 and then get the Voigt too? Damn Sony.
wfrank wrote:
Dont know who does really. People interested in metro-charts? ;-)
IQ-wise I expect the A7 to be a horse snout in front of the RX1 and in favorable conditions appr. two horse lengths ahead of the Canon 5D2.
Occasionally I sell 32" X 40" (can print to 40" X 50") framed prints (now offered in Metal) as Art Work from my available images all at this point having been prepared from 4" X 5" transparencies. I want to be able to offer this print size ability with my current work taken with my smaller cameras which is why at least in part why I have opted for my pre-ordered A7r.
Makten wrote:
What I do think is that this lens is not versatile or a good buy if you don't need the speed.
That is a stupid remark, of course we need the speed.
Back to OT, thanks for insights and hope your copy is fine. I talked to the guy who (I assume) you bought it from but too late, he sounded like the trustworthy type :-)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Occasionally I sell 32" X 40" (can print to 40" X 50") framed prints (now offered in Metal) as Art Work from my available images all at this point having been prepared from 4" X 5" transparencies. I want to be able to offer this print size ability with my current work taken with my smaller cameras which is why at least in part why I have opted for my pre-ordered the A7r.
Rich
Right. I put a smiley there, dont want to start that debate here. 36MP is rarely a disadvantage, rather a potential upside though in this particular case (thread title) it may be worse. But we dont know that yet.
wfrank wrote:
That is a stupid remark, of course we need the speed.
Maybe that, but I wonder if the CV 40/1.4 isn't gonna be a better "allround" alternative. Harsher bokeh and so on, but very much smaller and probably more predictive in its behaviour. It's probably pretty close to the Summicron-C, but more contrasty and perhaps less sharp stopped down if the glass is of a lower quality.
Back to OT, thanks for insights and hope your copy is fine. I talked to the guy who (I assume) you bought it from but too late, he sounded like the trustworthy type :-)
He seemed very trustworthy indeed, and we chatted for like half an hour in his car when I bought the lens. If you get the camera, you can borrow the lens for a couple of days if you like (after I've tried it to death ).
The CV40/1.4 is not as sharp as the 35/1.2. As mentioned the 35mm has much better (as in smoother) bokeh. Now I have used the Cv35/1.2 on crop cameras only but there certainly wasn't anything "unpredictably" about them.
The main problems were the ugly and typical magenta cast at large openings and the low edge quality unless stopped down.
Maybe it is different when using the lens with FF camera?
Makten wrote:
Maybe that, but I wonder if the CV 40/1.4 isn't gonna be a better "allround" alternative. Harsher bokeh and so on, but very much smaller and probably more predictive in its behaviour. It's probably pretty close to the Summicron-C, but more contrasty and perhaps less sharp stopped down if the glass is of a lower quality.
He seemed very trustworthy indeed, and we chatted for like half an hour in his car when I bought the lens. If you get the camera, you can borrow the lens for a couple of days if you like (after I've tried it to death )....Show more →
Thanks much obliged, I might call you next year . Thing is that I noted that lens quite long time ago when some skilled FM-people started to use it on the NEX 5N and derivatives. I rarely have the fidelity to talk that much about bokeh, onions and things like that but this lens really stood out from the crowd due to color and sharpness separation (my own word for quick&handsome separation of in-focus to OOF :o). And what I've seen so far the A7 just continues the Saga.
Coming to think about it, only a handful of lenses have stood out for similar reasons. That would be the CY 35/1.4, the CY 100/2, Rokkor 58/1.2 and quite oddly the ancient Leica/Leitz Summitar 50/2.
