 |
|
 |
|
Next: Lens Cement
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: Jun 06, 2004 Posts: 761
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:12 pm
Post subject: Aperture question Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>large-format (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi all.
I've bene lurking for some time, and a couple of weeks ago, almost as an
impulse purchase, I got hold of an old MPP Mk VI, upgraded to Mk VII spec,
on eBay, which I've been having tremendous fun with (can play with it for
hours, even without taking any photos).
The camera came with a Schneider Xenar 150mm f/4.5 mounted in a Synchro
Compur. However, the pointer on the aperture slider was missing when I got
it, and the screw that used to hold it there was sheared off.
Eventually, I carefully managed to remove the old screw, and put a new
pointer on from a bust-up old Compur with a random 75mm triplet that I had
bene playing around with, and at that point I noticed that, when the
aperture slider is against the end-stop, the pointer goes a little beyond
f/32, which is the smallest marked aperture setting.
this got me wondering whether the aperture scale was off, or whether it was
actually going beyond f/32, so I unscrewed the rear lens group, leaving the
aperture blades "naked", closed the aperture all the way and measured the
width of the hole.
It came to around 2mm (not an exact measurement - it was done by eye by
holding a ruler over the hole, so it could be around 1/4 mm off in either
direction). Assuming that the aperture diameter is as implied by the
f-number, this suggests that the lens actually goes to around f/64.
Does this sound right, or is the actual relationship between aperture width
and f-number likely to be more complicated in reality than the simple
mathematical model implies? >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Feb 28, 2005 Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
It's quite common for a pointer to go past the last marked aperture
value. Lens makers mount their lenses on standard shutters, that is,
one will fit many.
The last mark is the lens maker's warning that the lens will not
perform well at smaller apertures. However, performance may still be
fine for small enlargements or contact prints.
Typically, the distance between aperture markings goes by the inverse
of the square root of two. So if you measure the distance between f22
and f32, as marked on your Compur shutter, the next value, f45, will be
about 0.7 times that distance past f32.
The simple optical formula for aperture, that is, the inverse of the
focal length divided by the diameter of the iris, works well for a
simple lens. But for complex, coated, lenses (and there may be many
other factors that affect light transmission) my experience is that it
won't work.The value needs to be multiplied by a factor, which you may
determine for your particular lens by measuring at a wider aperture,
say f5.6, and confirming it by measuring again at f8.
I have no proper proof for any of the above, just my long experience
with view lenses. >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
|
stephen zimic via PhotoKB
|
External

Since: Feb 28, 2005 Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 06, 2004 Posts: 761
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1109598165.624920.104910 DeleteThis @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Bob G <bobjames27 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
[snip good stuff]
>The simple optical formula for aperture, that is, the inverse of the
>focal length divided by the diameter of the iris, works well for a
>simple lens. But for complex, coated, lenses (and there may be many
>other factors that affect light transmission) my experience is that it
>won't work.The value needs to be multiplied by a factor, which you may
>determine for your particular lens by measuring at a wider aperture,
>say f5.6, and confirming it by measuring again at f8.
That's primarily what I was wondering about, and suspected something like
that might be in play. I think I'll do the measurement at the wider
apertures and verify whether the simple relationship is the right one for
this lens (which I believe is a Tessar clone, if that matters).
Thanks for the info.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Dec 10, 2004 Posts: 77
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:52 am
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
To calculate the f/# you need to be measuring the entrance pupil
diameter, not the diameter of the aperture stop. The entrance pupil is
the image of the aperture stop as seen from the front of the lens. You
should be able to measure it approximately by laying a ruler across the
front of the lens and reading the diameter. Hold the lens as far from
your eye as possible to minimize any parallax effects, and make sure
you look directly on-axis.
In a Tessar, the iris diameter is always smaller than the entrance
pupil diameter.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 13, 2004 Posts: 155
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:43 am
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Chris Brown" <cpbrown.RemoveThis@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:likbf2-2e9.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <1109598165.624920.104910.RemoveThis@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Bob G <bobjames27.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip good stuff]
> That's primarily what I was wondering about, and suspected something like
> that might be in play. I think I'll do the measurement at the wider
> apertures and verify whether the simple relationship is the right one for
> this lens (which I believe is a Tessar clone, if that matters).
>
> Thanks for the info.
I too have an MPP Microtechnical Mk VI/VII bought in a Suffolk "antiques"
shop last October, and it too has given me lots of fun. I'd be very
surprised if a Tessar construction lens did anything strange to your
measurement. Are your slow shutter speeds near enough? Mine are quite
slow, and could be responsible for much larger errors than you are writing
about..
There's a new book published "Micro Precision Products The MPP Story and
the Products" by Basil Skinner. 2004.
ISBN 0 9546070 1 5
Had my copy for a week or two, lots of interesting background. I assume
you've found the MPP users/owners website.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm" target="_blank">http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 06, 2004 Posts: 761
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:31 am
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <d01a01$8qj$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Malcolm Stewart <malcolm_stewart.TakeThisOut@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I too have an MPP Microtechnical Mk VI/VII bought in a Suffolk "antiques"
>shop last October, and it too has given me lots of fun. I'd be very
>surprised if a Tessar construction lens did anything strange to your
>measurement. Are your slow shutter speeds near enough?
They're pretty much right on the nose, as far as I can tell. So far (albeit
from a very limited sample), the exposure seems bang-on from the indicated
aperture as well, so I guess it really does go to f/64.
>There's a new book published "Micro Precision Products The MPP Story and
>the Products" by Basil Skinner. 2004.
>ISBN 0 9546070 1 5
Thanks, I'll look into it.
>Had my copy for a week or two, lots of interesting background. I assume
>you've found the MPP users/owners website.
Yes, lots of good stuff there, and I'm thinking of joining, but want to use
the camera a bit more first, to see if it's something I'm likely to stick
at. I still expect to use medium format and digital for most of my photos -
the digital is very convinient as long as image quality isn't an overriding
concern, and the MF stuff is still reasonably convinient, and has more image
quality than my existing access to printing technology can handle. The MPP,
on th eother hand, has lots of character.  <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 23, 2004 Posts: 1182
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Chris Brown" <cpbrown DeleteThis @ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:fnsdf2-kl1.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <d01a01$8qj$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Malcolm Stewart <malcolm_stewart DeleteThis @megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I too have an MPP Microtechnical Mk VI/VII bought in a Suffolk "antiques"
> >shop last October, and it too has given me lots of fun. I'd be very
> >surprised if a Tessar construction lens did anything strange to your
> >measurement. Are your slow shutter speeds near enough?
>
> They're pretty much right on the nose, as far as I can tell. So far
(albeit
> from a very limited sample), the exposure seems bang-on from the indicated
> aperture as well, so I guess it really does go to f/64.
>
I think almost all my LF lenses will stop down further than their smallest
marked aperture, about half of them by as much as a stop (or more).
Generally not a good idea optically, but but the extra DoF is there if you
need it - ie. you can get more 'relative' sharpness within your zone of
focus, even if it is 'relative' to a lower overall level of sharpness due to
the diffraction - how much this matters will depend on how much you are
enlarging....
Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 06, 2004 Posts: 761
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Aperture question [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1109685121.291989.8260 DeleteThis @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
BC <brianc1959 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>To calculate the f/# you need to be measuring the entrance pupil
>diameter, not the diameter of the aperture stop. The entrance pupil is
>the image of the aperture stop as seen from the front of the lens. You
>should be able to measure it approximately by laying a ruler across the
>front of the lens and reading the diameter. Hold the lens as far from
>your eye as possible to minimize any parallax effects, and make sure
>you look directly on-axis.
That's just what I needed to know, thanks.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Aperture question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|