rscheffler Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
AGeoJO wrote:
I loved my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II a lot and I did hang on to it until just recently. Sharp as the lens was but starting at 180mm or so I started seeing physical darker "bars" that I assume coming from the lens internal baffles. I didn't see that on my Canon bodies. I could imagine that as the light path increases (added by the adapter), the internal baffles seemed to obstruct the side edges of the light path and that at any aperture, too.
My question is since we are increasing the light path by quite a bit by adding the Techart PLUS the additional adapter, let's say a Contax to Leica-M, has some of you started noticing obstruction issues when combined with a long lens, lets say 135mm or longer? Thanks!...Show more →
The light path isn't any longer than what the lens would experience on its native camera mount. But the adapter internal diameter(s) may be narrower.
Therefore I think it could be possible. Isn't the Canon EF mount larger in diameter than Sony FE? And the early Metabones adapter had to be changed when Sony transitioned from APS-C to include FF sensors. With the TechART, you're putting a narrower diameter M mount adapter between the camera and lens... I shoot a Leica 180/3.4 R mount lens on my M240 and I see vignetting in the corners of the frame, even stopped down... I've read it's due to the adapter and M-mount diameter...
I would guess a lens with a long exit pupil distance could be more susceptible to adapter/mount related physical vignetting since the light is seemingly coming from deeper inside the lens than one where the exit pupil is much closer to the lens mount. Therefore a wider 'tube' is needed to avoid vignetting.
In this LensRentals post you can compare some exit pupil distances. While the Canon zoom isn't listed there, the Nikon equivalent is and you'll note the quite long ~150mm distance. Similar with the Zeiss 70-200/T2.9 cine lens. Then look at some of the pre-digital tele lenses with much shorter exit pupil distances...
|