That sounds like an issue with the film transport.
Ah, that is different.
It isn't that the end is concave. It is that a whole chunk of the end of what should have been imaged is vignetted.
Is the plane of focus parallel to the film, or is it skewed at an angle?
most photographs I’ve taken with this camera I’m focusing on something near from 1 to 4 meters away. On the example I uploaded I’m focuse at 5 meters (using a lazer to determine focus), f/45, and infinity is sharp. This was the first of 4 exposure made of this scene. The fall off is most on this frame but still there for the other 3 on this roll. This is the last roll I have made with this camera.That looks like mechanical vignetting. Were the images showing this effect taken with the lens extended to focus on a close subject? Maybe the helicoid is causing the vignetting...
Does the vignetting correlate with focused distance? I.e. closer focus --> more vignetting or distant focus --> less vignetting?most photographs I’ve taken with this camera I’m focusing on something near from 1 to 4 meters away. On the example I uploaded I’m focuse at 5 meters (using a lazer to determine focus), f/45, and infinity is sharp. This was the first of 4 exposure made of this scene. The fall off is most on this frame but still there for the other 3 on this roll. This is the last roll I have made with this camera.
Does the vignetting correlate with focused distance? I.e. closer focus --> more vignetting or distant focus --> less vignetting?
Call the seller
I have been reviewing all my negatives with this camera, and dates I bought the filter I’m using. My first roll before any filter is fine, no cut off. Dates on my notes taken when I used the camera show the filter going on for roll #2. That roll had two frames testing the rubber shade and show cut off with the shade extended. All the later rolls show some degree of cut off.
next step is to 1-not use any filter,and then 2-use Tiffen slim uv alone. On checking the specs on the Tiffen Slim filter is is not clear how thich the frame is. Hoya makes one that claims to be 3mm thick, so that’s a possible choice.
for many years I avoided any filter on my lens unless I needed to correct something. As time went on and my professional photography went towards news work I began to use protection filters. So now that I’m older and working slower I will not use filters. But my Super Angulon is in such new looking shape I want to protect it.
While 90mm f8 Super Angulon covers 617 easily, there's only 17.5mm to the edge of the image circle on the edges.
I would say this is caused by rubber shade or by filters in some way.
If the lens was misaligned, it would have to be misaligned quite a bit to reach mechanical vignetting on this lens.
In other words, misalignment would be readily visible.
Rubber shade would be quite hard to use as they usually don't hold the shape very well.
Double filter on this lens will almost certainly cause mechanical vignetting.
This is easy to check by looking through the camera with lens open and looking from the corners through the lens.
If you can see the filter or the shade, they're most likely going to shade the image.
Shade on 617 can be in the view in this case from the top and the bottom as the image circle is mostly unused there and it would be beneficial there. Shouldn't cause any issues unless positioned too far.
I'm usually using a sheet of some kind or simply cover it with hand when shooting outdoors. This will eliminate flare from sun and won't cause any vignetting.
As long as the reflections or light aren't hitting front glass at sharp angles images will be fine.
Even without any shading the design of the camera will shade the lens without using the shade. The purpose of the shade with LF lenses is to limit the image circle to the image area so the light doesn't bounce around the camera and cause reflections. Design of the cone on the 617 prevents that as the cone itself will cut off vast majority of reflections. I would say it's more effective than standard shades.
I have yet to see flare in any of my images with this camera and wouldn't recommend using any standard lens shades as they're going to be ineffective and likely cause vignetting while not providing any shading where it's actually needed.
I can't find the datasheet for center filter for this lens at the moment. Here's some information on center filters - it should be correct:
If you look at the recommended IIIa center filter, it goes from M67 to M86 thread. That really shows how quickly image circle becomes limited with mechanical vignetting.
Other than this, it could be caused by issues on the lens but likely wouldn't be as sharp.
Stuck or out of place aperture or shutter blade could also affect things.
Can be checked by looking through lens and releasing it a number of times.
Recently I had a lens that had one shutter blade that was staying in the frame randomly every few releases.
Considering there's also some vignetting in corners on the left side, this is very unlikely.
Lastly, I don't stop the lens on 617 beyond f22 very often. f22 is more than enough for any distances beyond 4-5 meters.
Thanks for this. I’m going to stop using any filter or ring on the lens. Also most likely try f/22 i less I’m close to something.
If the vignetting was caused by filters or a lens hood, shouldn't the vignetting effect show equally on both sides? Since it does affect one side more than the other, it seems that the lens is not exactly centered.
The camera was calibrated by me together with the lens before shipping. It was also collimated on collimator and parallelism was checked to be within plus minus 0.08mm for the whole assembly before lens.
I would say that rubber hood is probably the culprit. If you look at the image closely, there's also the edge of the negative on the right side even though it's not that visible. At first look it seems that is off center a lot and that's what I thought at first. There might be a couple of mm's of difference.
Of course, it could have been bumped somewhere along the way but that amount of decentering would mean that lens is of axis and would show up in lack of sharpness. As it doesn't happen on every image the culprit is likely with the filters.
The front cone has a clearance of around 0.25mm and that's the maximum theoretical amount of lateral movement off center when the cone screws are removed.
Appreciate the response. Looking forward to the OP posting some new shots taken without filters or a lens hood. I have a 90mm Super Angulon and would not even try to use a lens hood with it - just block any light that hits the lens by holding my hat or something similar about a foot or more away from the lens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?