Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,705   Posts: 1,482,801   Online: 1059
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post
    I just had this lens Ai'd and, testing it out, I find it to be quite soft at full aperture. The chap who Ai'd it did note to me that the lens rattles a bit (this was so before I shipped it to him). I decided to Ai it anyway.

    If I shake the lens gently, it rattles slightly, and if I hold a tissue gently against the rear element and shake it, there is no rattle.

    Thus the rear element would seem to be slightly loose, and I wonder if this affects image quality.

    Anyone have any idea how to tighten the rear element of this lens?

    It's not a bad lens, but I was expecting a bit more...
    Ya think??

    This is a world class lens. Yours needs work.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    489
    Images
    10
    No longer. I fixed it. Piece of cake.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post
    No longer. I fixed it. Piece of cake.


    These 105s really are great lenses - I'm glad it was someting as simple as it was.

  4. #14
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,573
    Images
    1
    That's good news. My 105/2.5 is indeed one of my favorite portrait lenses. Love the character.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  5. #15
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Great to hear you fixed it. BTW was it suffering sharpness wide open at specific focusing distances? The rear cell must have totally came loose for significant rattling to be heard. Additionally, and depending on lens design, a slight shift of the rear group away from the front group usually just results in a nominal change of focal length that tends to be compensated for when you check focus through the viewfinder. This is why it's not strictly important that the tightening of the real group isn't exactly as it was at the factory - as focusing shifts the front away from the rear anyway. That's why I ask if this was only present at the limits of focus or if the rear group was completely unthreaded. If its the latter I'm surprised you got sharp images at f8.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Great to hear you fixed it. BTW was it suffering sharpness wide open at specific focusing distances? The rear cell must have totally came loose for significant rattling to be heard. Additionally, and depending on lens design, a slight shift of the rear group away from the front group usually just results in a nominal change of focal length that tends to be compensated for when you check focus through the viewfinder. This is why it's not strictly important that the tightening of the real group isn't exactly as it was at the factory - as focusing shifts the front away from the rear anyway. That's why I ask if this was only present at the limits of focus or if the rear group was completely unthreaded. If its the latter I'm surprised you got sharp images at f8.
    No it does not. The entire optical part of the lens moves forward in the helicoid mount.

  7. #17
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    No it does not. The entire optical part of the lens moves forward in the helicoid mount.
    Whoops, sorry my bad you're completely correct. Not enough coffee yet. What I meant is that ultimately a small shift in the rear shouldn't result in massive offness (subject to lens design of course) but a change in some optical aspect that usually ends up being compensated for by literally focusing the lens.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    489
    Images
    10
    Well to answer some questions, what I did was photograph a gallon plastic weed killer bottle that was about 45 feet away at the bottom of the yard. The bottle was a good subject as it has writing on it. My initial tests showed it to be a bit fuzzy at full aperture, with improvement with the lens shut down. On re-reviewing, it looks like the ground immediately behind it was sharper, leading me to wonder if the rattling rear element caused some erraticness in the precise plain of focus. Now the image is much sharper and compares with images shot with other Nikon lenses that I have (80-200 f4 and 35-135 f3.5/4.5). With none of the lenses is the small writing on the bottle legible, but the images with each lens are about as sharp as each other. Again, the test was done on an oldish digital camera (D200) which also introduces some limitations. My 35-135 produces razor sharp analog 8X10s so I am sure the 105 will now too.

    The rattle was not significant, and the tightening involved an almost imperceptible turn of the element, but it makes quite a difference.

  9. #19
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    I'm surprised that an almost imperceptible turn of the rear element previously had audible rattling honestly. I'm also surprised that what you saw in the viewfinder, focus wise, resulted in back focus in the final image but then again this was 45' away. Anyway I'm glad you got it fixed.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    675
    That rear set of element may just need a bit of torque. Lots of old ones do.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin