| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1888
Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:21 pm Post subject: Lenses with Internal Masking/Baffling? |
 |
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Does anyone have any insight into why some lenses have internal masking/baffling, and some do not?  If the baffles were beneficial, why wouldn't all lenses use them?
For example, here is the rear of my Minolta TELE ROKKOR-QD 300mm f5.6:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Yes. I saw it in the macro hexanon 3,5 lens. I don't know why same yes and some not.
Interesant design question.
Rino
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 5080
Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
Yes, interesting.
I'd like to know, too.
The Angenieux 35-70mm and 70-210mm both have this design and I too was wondering why ?
_________________
Olivier - Moderator 
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1888
Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Interestingly enough, it seems as though some of the Tamron Adaptall adapters used the baffles as well.. so for Tamron, it wasn't something that they selected for specific lenses, it was something that they selected for specific mounts (camera brands).
Adaptall for MD:
Adaptall for PK:
The Pentax one is a funky shape... I wonder why they didn't mask the full rectangle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11014
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
my guess is to calibrate aperture where lens without baffle would throw more light than aperture setting. for me this explains crop dslr "metering problems" requiring exposure offsets with mf lenses. the different shapes on the tamron adapters may accommodate meter photocell position in mirror box in Pentax K/M.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voe
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 138
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
voe wrote:
AFAIK, lens manifacturers put them to improve against internal reflections which increases contrast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1888
Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
| siriusdogstar wrote: |
| my guess is to calibrate aperture where lens without baffle would throw more light than aperture setting. for me this explains crop dslr "metering problems" requiring exposure offsets with mf lenses. |
Not quite sure I understand what you mean by the first part?
| voe wrote: |
| AFAIK, lens manifacturers put them to improve against internal reflections which increases contrast. |
That would certainly make sense. But then I wonder why they don't put them in all lenses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11014
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| Scheimpflug wrote: |
| siriusdogstar wrote: |
| my guess is to calibrate aperture where lens without baffle would throw more light than aperture setting. for me this explains crop dslr "metering problems" requiring exposure offsets with mf lenses. |
Not quite sure I understand what you mean by the first part? |
baffle masks the image circle projected by the lens where full image circle projected into the mirror box would cause too high meter reading.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 6557
Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
| Scheimpflug wrote: |
| voe wrote: |
| AFAIK, lens manifacturers put them to improve against internal reflections which increases contrast. |
That would certainly make sense. But then I wonder why they don't put them in all lenses? |
That old bugbear - cost. Fwiw, my Tamron Pentax adapters don't have the baffle shown above - I suppose they found that most people didn't know or notice or care, so they cut the cost of making them.
_________________
Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop Norway
http://www.fomafoto.com/
Webshop Czech
https://fomaobchod.cz/inshop/scripts/shop.aspx?action=DoChangeLanguage&LangID=4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1888
Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Here's another curiosity I stumbled across today:
It's the Nikon 55mm f3.5 Micro-NiKKOR. It looks like they gave it a partial baffle, yet punched out a circular portion in the center for clearance around the rear element.
_________________
Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers  ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
| voe wrote: |
| AFAIK, lens manifacturers put them to improve against internal reflections which increases contrast. |
+1
The mask blockea the light that is not used and can cause internal reflections.
It depends of what camera and not, of what lens.
Greetings 
_________________
Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
