JimBuchanan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Yes, Allan, I have replied to this issue on several occasions. Instead of hunting for threads, I'll restate.
The Rokkor 58/1.2, like most other prime lenses, have one single assembly of elements that move as a group and do not change their relationship with any other part of the lens assembly. Exceptions to this would be floating element designs like the Zeiss ZF 50/2.0 makro, Canon FD 50L, Leica M 50/1.4 ASPH, a host of higher quality wide angles, etc.
In the case of the Rokkor 58/1.2, and countless lens designs like it, there is one and only one lens position that produces a sharp focused infinity photo, which happens to be the closest position to the sensor, and therefore could cause mirror interference issues. To be clear, regardless of method of positioning the lens assembly for infinity focus, the position will be the same. The end result can be achieved by sanding a spacer down in thickness to reduce the optical path in the case of Minolta lenses on EOS, or use my parts. It makes no difference, except for the quality, geometric accuracy, cleanliness, and appearance of my kit.
Now, if a 5D/Rokkor 58 shooter is only interested in mid-range or close range portraits, then the lens can sacrifice infinity for mirror clearance, as the lens assembly doesn't need to be as close to the mirror. I've heard descriptions of same like this, "Infinity focus needs f/4.0". In this case, the lens simply doesn't reach infinity focus and the fact is masked by the depth of field, stopped down to f/4.0 in this case. That statement is really subjective at best.
With all the variance reported in 5D camera mirror clearances, the likely scenario is filing the lens housing, filing the 5D mirror, or both, and the possible sacrifice of infinity focus altogether.
As far as I am concerned, these last options are the shooters choice, as there are so many variables.
|
Do I still have to remove the aperture ring tab? I guess so?