Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,751   Posts: 1,670,631   Online: 974
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,880
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    428

    the strangest thing I've ever seen done to a Nikon lens....

    A friend of mine sent me these pics of a Nikon 35mm F2.8 lens that had been modified in the following way -

    the normal aperture control ring and the aperture control linkage had been removed, and a very large knurled aperture control ring substituted.

    anyone have a WAG (Wild-Ass Guess) as to what they could be?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSCF3807.jpg   DSCF3810.jpg   DSCF3811.jpg  

  2. #2
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,005
    Images
    117
    Fat or arthritic fingers?

    *

  3. #3
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,880
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    428
    Perhaps- but then why the removal of the auto-aperture function, and why put the aperture numbers on so they would be upside down when looking at them from the viewing end of the camera? It looks like they might have modded this to use as an enlarging or macro lens on a bellows...

  4. #4
    resummerfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Alaska
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,328
    My guess is... to work as an enlarging lens, so as not to bump the focus when stopping down?
    —Eric

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    It could also be a cine conversion; the Nikon bayonet mount is very common in aftermarket modifications of motion picture cameras like the Fries Mitchell Conversions.

    However, in most conversions I have seen where the lens is modified, the focus barrel is the same size (or larger if used with a mattebox and follow focus) as the aperture ring, so I would tend to vote "copy lens".

  6. #6
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    My only question is would a normal 35mm lens be corrected enough for high magnification close-up, copy work or enlarging? I know that special close-up lenses have been made like the Canon Macrophoto lens and lens by other makers, but these are specially designed and corrected for copy, close-up and enlarging usage.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Could be for use on a machine vision camera. This could often be an unusual environment, so easier set-up then leaving the lens might be common. The other possibility would be for usage in a housing, such as underwater, machine vision, or explosive environment.

    Just an aside on this particular lens, the 35mm f2.8 normal lens is nothing special as far as construction. The shift version is completely different, and the faster normal versions are considered by some to be much better choices.

    Ciao!

    Gordon

  8. #8
    wiseowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    S Wales
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    423
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven
    Could be for use on a machine vision camera. This could often be an unusual environment, so easier set-up then leaving the lens might be common. The other possibility would be for usage in a housing, such as underwater, machine vision, or explosive environment.

    Just an aside on this particular lens, the 35mm f2.8 normal lens is nothing special as far as construction. The shift version is completely different, and the faster normal versions are considered by some to be much better choices.

    Ciao!

    Gordon
    I'd second this, we use Nikon lenses on 3 separate instruments, 17 in all. Although none are modified apart from a locking collar fitted to prevent accidental adjustment.

    Cheers
    I'm Spartacus!



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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