| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020
Posts: 289
Location: the Netherlands
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:18 am Post subject: Lenses with floating elements |
 |
|
connloyalist wrote:
It is my understanding that years / decades after a lens that has floating elements was built, these floating elements can start to cause problems in terms of reduced optical quality.
First, is my understanding correct? And if yes, is there a way to determine if a lens has floating elements?
Regards, Christine |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10786
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Iirc, floating elements if the rear element does not move as lens is focused.
Also iirc, there are problems especially with wide angle lenses that have floating elements combined with inaccurate adapters.
More info here: https://forum.mflenses.com/who-made-the-first-floating-element-design-t47591.html
Use forum search for "floating" for more topics here...such as https://forum.mflenses.com/wa-with-floating-element-and-adapter-t73811.html
The focusing mechanics of lenses with floating elements are of course more complex. Improper realignment after servicing, or through usage is also possible especially if something comes loose
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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 |
|
|
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020
Posts: 289
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
Interesting, thank you. One of the answers in that first topic indicates this is not the issue I am/was having.
Regards, C |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10786
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| connloyalist wrote: |
Interesting, thank you. One of the answers in that first topic indicates this is not the issue I am/was having.
Regards, C |
What issue? 
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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 |
|
|
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020
Posts: 289
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
Well, you may remember me saying at some point that my Minolta MD 35-70 (the good one) is pretty bad. Consensus on that was that I must have a bad copy. Then the other day I remembered that I used to have a Minolta MD 28mm 2.8 which is equally bad. I know it is not a generic Minolta problem because I have a 135mm 3.5 and a 200mm 4.0 that are both stellar.
So I was thinking maybe a floating elements problem? But one of the posters in the other topic listed the Minolta primes with floating elements and the 28mm 2.8 isn't one of them.
Nevertheless, I am bit hesitant to dive deeper into Minolta lenses because twice now I have had lenses that are really pretty lousy. Shorter focal lengths not working well on crop camera's? Or maybe just bad luck?
Regards, Christine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10786
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
I remember...could be older wide lenses just aren't that good, especially on m43 sensor? How are your other older wide angles on m43? Is the small dense m43 sensor so demanding? I look forward to input from more knowledgeable members!
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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 |
|
|
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020
Posts: 289
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| I remember...could be older wide lenses just aren't that good, especially on m43 sensor? How are your other older wide angles on m43? Is the small dense m43 sensor so demanding? I look forward to input from more knowledgeable members! |
I will have to retest some of my wide lenses, but I as I remember the Nikon F and Olympus OM 24mm 2.8's are fine. So far for me this has been a problem specific to Minolta, oddly. And I would like to know the why and how.
Regards, C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RokkorDoctor
Joined: 27 Nov 2021
Posts: 1351
Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Of the Minolta manual focus SR mount 28mm lenses the f/2 is the only one with floating elements. The f/2.8 and f/3.5 do not have floating elements.
Personally I have no bad experiences with any of my Minolta lenses (approx. 250 of them), other than the odd copy here and there with haze. But I don't use them on crop cameras.
_________________
Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla
Joined: 30 Nov 2016
Posts: 387
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2024 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: Lenses with floating elements |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
| connloyalist wrote: |
It is my understanding that years / decades after a lens that has floating elements was built, these floating elements can start to cause problems in terms of reduced optical quality.
First, is my understanding correct? And if yes, is there a way to determine if a lens has floating elements?
Regards, Christine |
The Canon FD lenses with their cams + nylon bearings movements will suffer of wear on the nylon over time and with floating elements in primes and zooms that becomes even more a problem than in a simple one unit focusing scheme.
_________________
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot 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
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
