jcolwell Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Yeah, that artifact looks pretty annoying.
I did a little comparison shopping of block diagrams, and (as you found) it's pretty unclear if the FD and EF have the same elements, or not. The only observaion I can make, is that the rear element of the FD appears to be slimmer, but block diagrams are more symbolic than geometrically-accurate, and so this isn't conclusive.
I did some calculations based on ratios of filter diameter to front element diameter from FD images, and measurements from my EF 50/1.2L This shows that the front element diameter of the FD is about 41.5mm, while the EF is 45.0mm (measured). This suggests they are different optically.
Finally, I just measured the nose-to-nose distance between front and back elements on my EF 50/1.2L, and it's 58.0mm (+/- 0.5mm). This exceeds the overall length of the FD 50/1.2L (50.5mm, Canon Museum) by at least 7mm, and so I think this shows that there are real differences in optical geometry.
Anyway, while you're watching for a donor element, you might try this:
I've had success with reducing (and effectively eliminating) bad flare artifacts from a scratch in the lens surface (through the coating), by filling the scratch with black ink. The artifact shown in your images looks more like a shadow, but I figure it's worth a try. Keeping 'stray light' away from the inner edges of the scratch, may eliminate the problem (as it does for more obvious 'flare' problems). I'd start with washable ink.
Cheers,
Jim
P.S. Welcome to posting on FM.
|