Reading mode: Light Dark

500mm f/4 P AIS Nikon lens-your thoughts.

Go to last post
play with you when you get it? LOL

You are the Imelda Marcos of lenses. I envy you.
GeeJay said:
--
Hi All,

I've found a used 500mm f/4 P lens and now need to find out what
you all think of it...any comments.

I'd like to use it for birds with the Wimberley Sidekick. I'm
wondering if that's possible or if any of you have done that.

I know it's manual focus and I have no trouble with the 45P manual
focus lens so think I can work the 500. I will use it with the D2H.

Also any comments on filters would be helpful.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Best to you,

Gaye
Click to expand...
--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
GeeJay said:
--
Hi All,

I've found a used 500mm f/4 P lens and now need to find out what
you all think of it...any comments.

I'd like to use it for birds with the Wimberley Sidekick. I'm
wondering if that's possible or if any of you have done that.

I know it's manual focus and I have no trouble with the 45P manual
focus lens so think I can work the 500. I will use it with the D2H.
Click to expand...
I've got essentially all those big manual Nikkors except for the 500 f/4. They all work well with the Wimberley Sidekick or the standard version that I prefer, and so do the big 'n huge ones like the 400 f/2.8. Don't worry about the "lack" of autofocus; these lenses were designed to be used manually, so have a short focus travel--it just takes a bit of experience and soon you can be your own best "autofocus" motor, with no added battery drain. Furthermore you have a lens that's likely to be a much more rugged, not to mention lighter and way cheaper. The smooth & responsive Wimberley support will make it much easier for you to concentrate on focus adjustment.
-RogM
 
I'm not saying that you need a bigger tripod and/or head -- just that you are probably near the limits of the one you have.

The 500 f/4 P is fairly light-weight compared to the newer AF models -- easily a couple of pounds lighter. With the newer AF-S versions, you would probably need the bigger 3-series tripod & head.

With lenses like the 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4, you need something even larger -- like the G1548 and the Wimberly head.
GeeJay said:
Hi GaySatyr,
Wow, that's something to think about.. I'm going to check out that
heavier ballhead and the Gitzo 1348.. Thanks very much for helping
me with this information. AND I looked at your site and your
equipment is very interesting. I'm going to go back and really
check look more carefully.
You obviously love everything about photography!

Thanks very much and my best to you,

Gaye
Click to expand...
 
Backdoctor said:
You are the Imelda Marcos of lenses. I envy you.
GeeJay said:
--
Hi All,

I've found a used 500mm f/4 P lens and now need to find out what
you all think of it...any comments.

I'd like to use it for birds with the Wimberley Sidekick. I'm
wondering if that's possible or if any of you have done that.

I know it's manual focus and I have no trouble with the 45P manual
focus lens so think I can work the 500. I will use it with the D2H.

Also any comments on filters would be helpful.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Best to you,

Gaye
Click to expand...
--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
Click to expand...
--
Hi Harris,

You know I have to get it all done before I lose my eyes and
start shaking LOL--that time could be right around the corner at my age.

Definitely an urgency to all this but certainly a wonderful hobby to play with into the future. Wish I'd started many years ago.

I'll see you soon and I'm really looking forward to our visit! By the way, I enjoy every one of your photos..

Best to you,

Gaye
 
GaySatyr said:
The 500 f/4 P is fairly light-weight compared to the newer AF
models -- easily a couple of pounds lighter. With the newer AF-S
versions, you would probably need the bigger 3-series tripod & head.

With lenses like the 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4, you need something
even larger -- like the G1548 and the Wimberly head.
GeeJay said:
Hi GaySatyr,
Wow, that's something to think about.. I'm going to check out that
heavier ballhead and the Gitzo 1348.. Thanks very much for helping
me with this information. AND I looked at your site and your
equipment is very interesting. I'm going to go back and really
check look more carefully.
You obviously love everything about photography!

Thanks very much and my best to you,

Gaye
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Hi GaySatyr,

I think I understand about the tripods and heads and many thanks to you. I hadn't really thought about the things you've commented on before and certainly good information if I go any heavier with the lenses..

Cheers and many thanks!
Best to you,

Gaye
 
RogM said:
GeeJay said:
--
Hi All,

I've found a used 500mm f/4 P lens and now need to find out what
you all think of it...any comments.

I'd like to use it for birds with the Wimberley Sidekick. I'm
wondering if that's possible or if any of you have done that.

I know it's manual focus and I have no trouble with the 45P manual
focus lens so think I can work the 500. I will use it with the D2H.
Click to expand...
I've got essentially all those big manual Nikkors except for the
500 f/4. They all work well with the Wimberley Sidekick or the
standard version that I prefer, and so do the big 'n huge ones like
the 400 f/2.8. Don't worry about the "lack" of autofocus; these
lenses were designed to be used manually, so have a short focus
travel--it just takes a bit of experience and soon you can be your
own best "autofocus" motor, with no added battery drain.
Furthermore you have a lens that's likely to be a much more rugged,
not to mention lighter and way cheaper. The smooth & responsive
Wimberley support will make it much easier for you to concentrate
on focus adjustment.
-RogM
Click to expand...
--
Hi RogM,

Your comments are 'right on'........and sure help me. I have noticed that the 45P has a very short 'focus travel' and I really like that lens and have no problem with the manual focus. That's why I got interested in any P lens... I did have problems with the D-70 with the 45P because couldn't see the manual focus very well...but with the D2H I have no problems with it because of the larger view finder..It's quite a difference and makes the P lenses work well fo rme on that camera.

Thanks very much for your comments... really appreciated by me and I'm sure others who read your post..

Best to you,

Gaye
 
This is for RogM and GaySatyr and anyone else that has a 500P...

I located a sample and I am testing it on a Gitzo 1410 and Markins M10, with and without Sidekick and I have a couple of issues...

1) With the 1410 #2 and #3 sections collapsed, the setup is fairly vibration resistant. With the 1410 set up for eye level (lower section only partially extended) a horizontal tap on the end of the tube takes several seconds to damp out. With or without a sidekick; the sidekick only makes it worse.

Conventional long lens technique is to put your over the top of the lens directly over tripod foot. That does nothing to damp the vobrations. Putting my hand on the far end of the lens damps it out fairly well. Putting my eye firmly to the macera helps even more.

Is this characteristic of this lens or should I be looking for a specific problem somewhere in the chain?

2) My exposure at F/4 is off (low/dark) from 2/3 to a full stop relative to all other apertures. I have tried a D70 and a D2H both using the command dial to set aperture and directly with the aperture ring. is this typical of the lens? I have heard about light falloff, but I interpret that as corner darkening and my issue is with the entire image, including the center.

The diaphram seems to operate ok and it looks like it stops down properly when I peek into the lens while unmounted.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards,
Neil
 
With my old Tiltall tripod, I didn't have a problem -- it was rock-stable and equally inconvenient. However, I did often use an extra clamp/arm locking the camera body to one of the tripod legs (2-point support w/ 500mm lens mounted on tripod tilt/pan head) -- a bit slow to move around but it met my needs at the time.

With my Gitzo 1348 (bottom-most leg segments very seldom extended and never extended with long lenses) / G1321 leveling base / Markins M20, I again have no problem -- the system is stable enough that I don't worry about it. I am using a cable release (MC20 or AR2, depending on the camera body). And, for exposures where I'm forced into the critical zone, less than 1/60th and more than 1 second, I use MLU (& usually one of my old F2 bodies - I'm not used to using MLU on the F6 yet - too new a toy).

I have no experience with the Gitzo aluminum tripods. The only Gitzos I've ever used are the CF variety. My past experience with "professional" tripods were with some of the ancient Linhof and Sachtler models (wood and/or wood/aluminum in combination) belonging to friends. They are why I bought the Tiltall !!!

You also have to remember that I haven't made the digital plunge as yet. Just celebrated the 37th anniversary of my 1st SLR by buying the pair of F6 bodies (and the 200 f/2G AFS VR) as a Christmas present to myself this past month. Digital will be my next year's Christmas present to me!

One point: when selectively extending leg segments, extend the smallest diameter (bottom-most) segment only if you absolutely have to do so. Another technique: get yourself a square beanbag about 10-12 inches on a side and filled loosely with beans so that it is about two inches thick when evenly flattened but with plenty of interior wiggle room. Drape this over a long lens directly above the tripod mount. Serves as a great vibration damper. (Mine is actually a zippered pouch that travels "empty" and gets filled only when needed -- gravel, pebbles, sand -- whatever is conveniently at hand.)

Regarding exposure, my 500 f/4P vignettes maybe 1/3-stop in the corners at f/4 and maybe 1/6-stop at f/5.6 -- none at f/8 -- however, based on center-weighted metering, exposure has always been essentially perfect.
NRothschild said:
This is for RogM and GaySatyr and anyone else that has a 500P...

I located a sample and I am testing it on a Gitzo 1410 and Markins
M10, with and without Sidekick and I have a couple of issues...

1) With the 1410 #2 and #3 sections collapsed, the setup is fairly
vibration resistant. With the 1410 set up for eye level (lower
section only partially extended) a horizontal tap on the end of the
tube takes several seconds to damp out. With or without a
sidekick; the sidekick only makes it worse.

Conventional long lens technique is to put your over the top of the
lens directly over tripod foot. That does nothing to damp the
vobrations. Putting my hand on the far end of the lens damps it
out fairly well. Putting my eye firmly to the macera helps even
more.

Is this characteristic of this lens or should I be looking for a
specific problem somewhere in the chain?

2) My exposure at F/4 is off (low/dark) from 2/3 to a full stop
relative to all other apertures. I have tried a D70 and a D2H both
using the command dial to set aperture and directly with the
aperture ring. is this typical of the lens? I have heard about
light falloff, but I interpret that as corner darkening and my
issue is with the entire image, including the center.

The diaphram seems to operate ok and it looks like it stops down
properly when I peek into the lens while unmounted.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
 
GaySatyr,

I appreciate the tips. I think you misunderstood my question. I know how to dampen vibration with beanbags or a hand on the lens, eye to the eyepiece cup, etc. What I am asking is this: If you set up on your favorite tripod and, without otherwise touching the lens or attempting to dampen vinration, you tap the front of the lens with your findger, how long does it take to dampen out and is it "excessive", meaning is is very noticable in the viewfinder.

How to dampen vibration is a compeltely different issue than determining if the system has more slop than it should. Well, that's my way of approaching it.

I doubt that putting a beanbag above the tripod mount would help me. The only way I can dampen the vibration is to put my hand just behind the front lens element. Putting my hand above the tripod mount does NOTHING for the vibration I am getting. Being new to ong lenses I do not know if this is normal or indicates a problem.

Regards,
Neil
GaySatyr said:
With my Gitzo 1348 (bottom-most leg segments very seldom extended
and never extended with long lenses) / G1321 leveling base /
Markins M20, I again have no problem -- the system is stable enough
that I don't worry about it. I am using a cable release (MC20 or
AR2, depending on the camera body). And, for exposures where I'm
forced into the critical zone, less than 1/60th and more than 1
second, I use MLU (& usually one of my old F2 bodies - I'm not used
to using MLU on the F6 yet - too new a toy).

I have no experience with the Gitzo aluminum tripods. The only
Gitzos I've ever used are the CF variety. My past experience with
"professional" tripods were with some of the ancient Linhof and
Sachtler models (wood and/or wood/aluminum in combination)
belonging to friends. They are why I bought the Tiltall !!!

You also have to remember that I haven't made the digital plunge as
yet. Just celebrated the 37th anniversary of my 1st SLR by buying
the pair of F6 bodies (and the 200 f/2G AFS VR) as a Christmas
present to myself this past month. Digital will be my next year's
Christmas present to me!

One point: when selectively extending leg segments, extend the
smallest diameter (bottom-most) segment only if you absolutely have
to do so. Another technique: get yourself a square beanbag about
10-12 inches on a side and filled loosely with beans so that it is
about two inches thick when evenly flattened but with plenty of
interior wiggle room. Drape this over a long lens directly above
the tripod mount. Serves as a great vibration damper. (Mine is
actually a zippered pouch that travels "empty" and gets filled only
when needed -- gravel, pebbles, sand -- whatever is conveniently at
hand.)

Regarding exposure, my 500 f/4P vignettes maybe 1/3-stop in the
corners at f/4 and maybe 1/6-stop at f/5.6 -- none at f/8 --
however, based on center-weighted metering, exposure has always
been essentially perfect.
NRothschild said:
This is for RogM and GaySatyr and anyone else that has a 500P...

I located a sample and I am testing it on a Gitzo 1410 and Markins
M10, with and without Sidekick and I have a couple of issues...

1) With the 1410 #2 and #3 sections collapsed, the setup is fairly
vibration resistant. With the 1410 set up for eye level (lower
section only partially extended) a horizontal tap on the end of the
tube takes several seconds to damp out. With or without a
sidekick; the sidekick only makes it worse.

Conventional long lens technique is to put your over the top of the
lens directly over tripod foot. That does nothing to damp the
vobrations. Putting my hand on the far end of the lens damps it
out fairly well. Putting my eye firmly to the macera helps even
more.

Is this characteristic of this lens or should I be looking for a
specific problem somewhere in the chain?

2) My exposure at F/4 is off (low/dark) from 2/3 to a full stop
relative to all other apertures. I have tried a D70 and a D2H both
using the command dial to set aperture and directly with the
aperture ring. is this typical of the lens? I have heard about
light falloff, but I interpret that as corner darkening and my
issue is with the entire image, including the center.

The diaphram seems to operate ok and it looks like it stops down
properly when I peek into the lens while unmounted.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Neil
 
Sorry, I misunderstood....

"Resonant wobble" is why I used to use the extra "arm" on my old Tiltall with the 500 f/4P mounted. I suspect it is as much a function of the tripod mount attached to the lens as anything else. It is possible that the flex in the tripod mount and your 1410/M10 combination reinforce each other -- I don't know. The legs on my old Tiltall were never the problem. The tilt/pan head worked but was far from ideal. I eventually replaced it with an NPC Pro head (not really a ball head -- quite an interesting and useful design but, again, not optimal -- but I didn't need the "arm" any more. I'm really happy with my current Markins).

I just pulled out the lens, the TC14B, an F6 body and my Gitzo 1348/M20. Yes, the "wobble" is still there, although not at the amplitude & duration I remember with the Tiltall. It gets worse if I extend the 4th leg section but does not appear to change significantly with legs collapsed completely and with sections 2 & 3 extended. Its total duration seems to be about 2-3 seconds. I'd rate its amplitude as "just noticable." Watching through the viewfinder, I'd say that the amplitude de-centers the image by about 2mm plus or minus (using the 12mm circle as a reference). It goes away by itself and doesn't seem to return unless I initiate it. A light thump against the legs does not seem to cause a problem, however, a thump at either end of the lens/body assembly does. I'm sure the tripod mount disign of the lens contributes. There may be a tortion component supplied by the aluminum legs as compared to the CF legs, as well -- I don't know -- just guessing.

I don't have my jury-rigged extra arm any more; but you might find something similar to be useful. The only problem is that once the two-point support is locked in, you can't re-aim the lens easily - requires a lot of fiddling.
NRothschild said:
GaySatyr,

I appreciate the tips. I think you misunderstood my question. I
know how to dampen vibration with beanbags or a hand on the lens,
eye to the eyepiece cup, etc. What I am asking is this: If you
set up on your favorite tripod and, without otherwise touching the
lens or attempting to dampen vinration, you tap the front of the
lens with your findger, how long does it take to dampen out and is
it "excessive", meaning is is very noticable in the viewfinder.

How to dampen vibration is a compeltely different issue than
determining if the system has more slop than it should. Well,
that's my way of approaching it.

I doubt that putting a beanbag above the tripod mount would help
me. The only way I can dampen the vibration is to put my hand just
behind the front lens element. Putting my hand above the tripod
mount does NOTHING for the vibration I am getting. Being new to
ong lenses I do not know if this is normal or indicates a problem.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
 
GaySatyr,

Thanks... That was a great description and I think my results are very similar. That tells me that I don't have a unique issue with my lens, tripod or M10. It probably wouldn't hurt to upgrade the ballhead (except ye ole wallet).

Now.. on to the next problem. Bear with me here...

I set the D2H on manual exposure and focused on my kitchen cabinets. My exposure was about 1/20 F/4. I shot at F/4 to F/11 at 1/3 stop increments AT THE SAME SHUTTER SPEED.

Now, I assume that the D2H is capable of controlling an AIS len's aperture in partial stop (1/3) increments and at smaller apertures it appears that way to me.

From F/4 to F/5.6 the esposures are IDENTICAL. At F/6.3 the exposure is about 1/6 stop darker (half what it should be) and from there it more or less progresses in 1/3 stop increments to the point where things are too dark to be reliable.

I shined a flashlight down the lens barrel and fired the shutter remotely and confirmed the diaphram is working. I did this at slow shutter speeds of about 2s so I could easily verify it. The amount it stops down is about consistent with what I would think F/4.5, F/5 and F/5.6 should be.

I then turned off some lights and repeated the test at a 2s exposure to test if the problem only occurs at relatively higher shutter speeds. Same results.

So... the diaphram works correctly and the problem occurs even at very slow shutter speed where a slight hesitation or other timing issue could impact hte exposure.

I removed the drop in NC filter to see if somehow it was constricting the light path. Same results.

What do you think of that? It is as if the lens is really an F/5.6 constricted by some design issue but that is impossible. There is too much glass on that lens!

I'm mystified. The only thing left to do is to test the same scene and lighting with another lens and compare exposures to see what aperture the lens is actually shooting when it is set to F/4.

Regards,
Neil
GaySatyr said:
"Resonant wobble" is why I used to use the extra "arm" on my old
Tiltall with the 500 f/4P mounted. I suspect it is as much a
function of the tripod mount attached to the lens as anything else.
It is possible that the flex in the tripod mount and your 1410/M10
combination reinforce each other -- I don't know. The legs on my
old Tiltall were never the problem. The tilt/pan head worked but
was far from ideal. I eventually replaced it with an NPC Pro head
(not really a ball head -- quite an interesting and useful design
but, again, not optimal -- but I didn't need the "arm" any more.
I'm really happy with my current Markins).

I just pulled out the lens, the TC14B, an F6 body and my Gitzo
1348/M20. Yes, the "wobble" is still there, although not at the
amplitude & duration I remember with the Tiltall. It gets worse if
I extend the 4th leg section but does not appear to change
significantly with legs collapsed completely and with sections 2 &
3 extended. Its total duration seems to be about 2-3 seconds. I'd
rate its amplitude as "just noticable." Watching through the
viewfinder, I'd say that the amplitude de-centers the image by
about 2mm plus or minus (using the 12mm circle as a reference). It
goes away by itself and doesn't seem to return unless I initiate
it. A light thump against the legs does not seem to cause a
problem, however, a thump at either end of the lens/body assembly
does. I'm sure the tripod mount disign of the lens contributes.
There may be a tortion component supplied by the aluminum legs as
compared to the CF legs, as well -- I don't know -- just guessing.

I don't have my jury-rigged extra arm any more; but you might find
something similar to be useful. The only problem is that once the
two-point support is locked in, you can't re-aim the lens easily -
requires a lot of fiddling.
NRothschild said:
GaySatyr,

I appreciate the tips. I think you misunderstood my question. I
know how to dampen vibration with beanbags or a hand on the lens,
eye to the eyepiece cup, etc. What I am asking is this: If you
set up on your favorite tripod and, without otherwise touching the
lens or attempting to dampen vinration, you tap the front of the
lens with your findger, how long does it take to dampen out and is
it "excessive", meaning is is very noticable in the viewfinder.

How to dampen vibration is a compeltely different issue than
determining if the system has more slop than it should. Well,
that's my way of approaching it.

I doubt that putting a beanbag above the tripod mount would help
me. The only way I can dampen the vibration is to put my hand just
behind the front lens element. Putting my hand above the tripod
mount does NOTHING for the vibration I am getting. Being new to
ong lenses I do not know if this is normal or indicates a problem.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Neil
 
This I answered in the earlier post. My 500 f/4 exposure at f/4 (per center-weighted metering - which I tend to use with longer lenses) is flawless with approximately 1/3rd-stop light loss in extreme corners due to vignetting -- something that should NOT be a problem with a DX sensor at all. At f/5.6, I still have possibly 1/6th-stop vignetting in the corners but it is only moticeable if I'm shooting exactly the right background (evenly bright blue sky, a white wall, whatever). At f/8, there is no discernable vignetting at all.

I don't have a digital sensor body with which to play, but I've shot many a roll of Fuji Velvia (rated at EI 40) without a problem. I don't know what is causing your problem.

I didn't load any film in the F6 tonight -- in fact, I haven't used the 500 f/4P with the F6 yet except for "knocking around" tonight. However, it has always worked flawlessly with my older bodies (including the N90s). Playing with the meter with the F6 mounted on the 500 f/4P, it appears as if the lens is differentiating properly at f4 and f/5.6
NRothschild said:
GaySatyr,

Thanks... That was a great description and I think my results are
very similar. That tells me that I don't have a unique issue with
my lens, tripod or M10. It probably wouldn't hurt to upgrade the
ballhead (except ye ole wallet).

Now.. on to the next problem. Bear with me here...

I set the D2H on manual exposure and focused on my kitchen
cabinets. My exposure was about 1/20 F/4. I shot at F/4 to F/11
at 1/3 stop increments AT THE SAME SHUTTER SPEED.

Now, I assume that the D2H is capable of controlling an AIS len's
aperture in partial stop (1/3) increments and at smaller apertures
it appears that way to me.

From F/4 to F/5.6 the esposures are IDENTICAL. At F/6.3 the
exposure is about 1/6 stop darker (half what it should be) and from
there it more or less progresses in 1/3 stop increments to the
point where things are too dark to be reliable.

I shined a flashlight down the lens barrel and fired the shutter
remotely and confirmed the diaphram is working. I did this at slow
shutter speeds of about 2s so I could easily verify it. The amount
it stops down is about consistent with what I would think F/4.5,
F/5 and F/5.6 should be.

I then turned off some lights and repeated the test at a 2s
exposure to test if the problem only occurs at relatively higher
shutter speeds. Same results.

So... the diaphram works correctly and the problem occurs even at
very slow shutter speed where a slight hesitation or other timing
issue could impact hte exposure.

I removed the drop in NC filter to see if somehow it was
constricting the light path. Same results.

What do you think of that? It is as if the lens is really an F/5.6
constricted by some design issue but that is impossible. There is
too much glass on that lens!

I'm mystified. The only thing left to do is to test the same scene
and lighting with another lens and compare exposures to see what
aperture the lens is actually shooting when it is set to F/4.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
 
I can't imagine that my lens is acting "normal"; it is a very obvious issue, especially with a digital body where it's easy to test and play.

It is very strange and doesn't make sense. I was hoping somebody had an idea. I'd just like to understand how I can get these results :-)

Thanks very much for your help, especially setting up for the tap tests.

Regards,
Neil
GaySatyr said:
I don't have a digital sensor body with which to play, but I've
shot many a roll of Fuji Velvia (rated at EI 40) without a problem.
I don't know what is causing your problem.

I didn't load any film in the F6 tonight -- in fact, I haven't used
the 500 f/4P with the F6 yet except for "knocking around" tonight.
However, it has always worked flawlessly with my older bodies
(including the N90s). Playing with the meter with the F6 mounted
on the 500 f/4P, it appears as if the lens is differentiating
properly at f4 and f/5.6
NRothschild said:
GaySatyr,

Thanks... That was a great description and I think my results are
very similar. That tells me that I don't have a unique issue with
my lens, tripod or M10. It probably wouldn't hurt to upgrade the
ballhead (except ye ole wallet).

Now.. on to the next problem. Bear with me here...

I set the D2H on manual exposure and focused on my kitchen
cabinets. My exposure was about 1/20 F/4. I shot at F/4 to F/11
at 1/3 stop increments AT THE SAME SHUTTER SPEED.

Now, I assume that the D2H is capable of controlling an AIS len's
aperture in partial stop (1/3) increments and at smaller apertures
it appears that way to me.

From F/4 to F/5.6 the esposures are IDENTICAL. At F/6.3 the
exposure is about 1/6 stop darker (half what it should be) and from
there it more or less progresses in 1/3 stop increments to the
point where things are too dark to be reliable.

I shined a flashlight down the lens barrel and fired the shutter
remotely and confirmed the diaphram is working. I did this at slow
shutter speeds of about 2s so I could easily verify it. The amount
it stops down is about consistent with what I would think F/4.5,
F/5 and F/5.6 should be.

I then turned off some lights and repeated the test at a 2s
exposure to test if the problem only occurs at relatively higher
shutter speeds. Same results.

So... the diaphram works correctly and the problem occurs even at
very slow shutter speed where a slight hesitation or other timing
issue could impact hte exposure.

I removed the drop in NC filter to see if somehow it was
constricting the light path. Same results.

What do you think of that? It is as if the lens is really an F/5.6
constricted by some design issue but that is impossible. There is
too much glass on that lens!

I'm mystified. The only thing left to do is to test the same scene
and lighting with another lens and compare exposures to see what
aperture the lens is actually shooting when it is set to F/4.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Neil
 
Glad I was of some help.

P.S. Could you do me a favor? Read the "Tables" page of my new web pages I'm working on and tell me if it makes any sense toyou what I'm about to be doing. I don't want to bother doing all the coding if it isn't useful.

My email address is my forum ID at my webpage hosts url.

Thanks
NRothschild said:
It is very strange and doesn't make sense. I was hoping somebody
had an idea. I'd just like to understand how I can get these
results :-)

Thanks very much for your help, especially setting up for the tap
tests.

Regards,
Neil
GaySatyr said:
I don't have a digital sensor body with which to play, but I've
shot many a roll of Fuji Velvia (rated at EI 40) without a problem.
I don't know what is causing your problem.

I didn't load any film in the F6 tonight -- in fact, I haven't used
the 500 f/4P with the F6 yet except for "knocking around" tonight.
However, it has always worked flawlessly with my older bodies
(including the N90s). Playing with the meter with the F6 mounted
on the 500 f/4P, it appears as if the lens is differentiating
properly at f4 and f/5.6
NRothschild said:
GaySatyr,

Thanks... That was a great description and I think my results are
very similar. That tells me that I don't have a unique issue with
my lens, tripod or M10. It probably wouldn't hurt to upgrade the
ballhead (except ye ole wallet).

Now.. on to the next problem. Bear with me here...

I set the D2H on manual exposure and focused on my kitchen
cabinets. My exposure was about 1/20 F/4. I shot at F/4 to F/11
at 1/3 stop increments AT THE SAME SHUTTER SPEED.

Now, I assume that the D2H is capable of controlling an AIS len's
aperture in partial stop (1/3) increments and at smaller apertures
it appears that way to me.

From F/4 to F/5.6 the esposures are IDENTICAL. At F/6.3 the
exposure is about 1/6 stop darker (half what it should be) and from
there it more or less progresses in 1/3 stop increments to the
point where things are too dark to be reliable.

I shined a flashlight down the lens barrel and fired the shutter
remotely and confirmed the diaphram is working. I did this at slow
shutter speeds of about 2s so I could easily verify it. The amount
it stops down is about consistent with what I would think F/4.5,
F/5 and F/5.6 should be.

I then turned off some lights and repeated the test at a 2s
exposure to test if the problem only occurs at relatively higher
shutter speeds. Same results.

So... the diaphram works correctly and the problem occurs even at
very slow shutter speed where a slight hesitation or other timing
issue could impact hte exposure.

I removed the drop in NC filter to see if somehow it was
constricting the light path. Same results.

What do you think of that? It is as if the lens is really an F/5.6
constricted by some design issue but that is impossible. There is
too much glass on that lens!

I'm mystified. The only thing left to do is to test the same scene
and lighting with another lens and compare exposures to see what
aperture the lens is actually shooting when it is set to F/4.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
 
I sent a PM.

Good night!

Neil
GaySatyr said:
P.S. Could you do me a favor? Read the "Tables" page of my new
web pages I'm working on and tell me if it makes any sense toyou
what I'm about to be doing. I don't want to bother doing all the
coding if it isn't useful.

My email address is my forum ID at my webpage hosts url.

Thanks
NRothschild said:
It is very strange and doesn't make sense. I was hoping somebody
had an idea. I'd just like to understand how I can get these
results :-)

Thanks very much for your help, especially setting up for the tap
tests.

Regards,
Neil
GaySatyr said:
I don't have a digital sensor body with which to play, but I've
shot many a roll of Fuji Velvia (rated at EI 40) without a problem.
I don't know what is causing your problem.

I didn't load any film in the F6 tonight -- in fact, I haven't used
the 500 f/4P with the F6 yet except for "knocking around" tonight.
However, it has always worked flawlessly with my older bodies
(including the N90s). Playing with the meter with the F6 mounted
on the 500 f/4P, it appears as if the lens is differentiating
properly at f4 and f/5.6
NRothschild said:
GaySatyr,

Thanks... That was a great description and I think my results are
very similar. That tells me that I don't have a unique issue with
my lens, tripod or M10. It probably wouldn't hurt to upgrade the
ballhead (except ye ole wallet).

Now.. on to the next problem. Bear with me here...

I set the D2H on manual exposure and focused on my kitchen
cabinets. My exposure was about 1/20 F/4. I shot at F/4 to F/11
at 1/3 stop increments AT THE SAME SHUTTER SPEED.

Now, I assume that the D2H is capable of controlling an AIS len's
aperture in partial stop (1/3) increments and at smaller apertures
it appears that way to me.

From F/4 to F/5.6 the esposures are IDENTICAL. At F/6.3 the
exposure is about 1/6 stop darker (half what it should be) and from
there it more or less progresses in 1/3 stop increments to the
point where things are too dark to be reliable.

I shined a flashlight down the lens barrel and fired the shutter
remotely and confirmed the diaphram is working. I did this at slow
shutter speeds of about 2s so I could easily verify it. The amount
it stops down is about consistent with what I would think F/4.5,
F/5 and F/5.6 should be.

I then turned off some lights and repeated the test at a 2s
exposure to test if the problem only occurs at relatively higher
shutter speeds. Same results.

So... the diaphram works correctly and the problem occurs even at
very slow shutter speed where a slight hesitation or other timing
issue could impact hte exposure.

I removed the drop in NC filter to see if somehow it was
constricting the light path. Same results.

What do you think of that? It is as if the lens is really an F/5.6
constricted by some design issue but that is impossible. There is
too much glass on that lens!

I'm mystified. The only thing left to do is to test the same scene
and lighting with another lens and compare exposures to see what
aperture the lens is actually shooting when it is set to F/4.

Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Neil
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Neil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top