Hello all, I just purchased the above lenses yet I am unable to unscrew to front cell from the shutter. Am I supposed to take a lenses wrench and remove the individual elements of the front cell in order to use the wider rear cell or is there some way of getting the front element unstuck. Naptha or wd40 perhaps?
No liquids, please. Shutters are dry lubricated, so you don't want oils.
If the front cell is stuck, grab it tightly with your hands and unscrew. Left to loosen. If you can't grab well enough, put double stick tape on lens or hands and try again. That's how I removed a stuck cell on my 360mm. Good luck.
Do not under any circumstances try to dismantle the front cell to shoot with the rear cell alone.
For a really tight cell, a good alternative that has been recommended here and that I have used is to get a set of strap wrenches from Harbor Frieght (if you are in the US, or elsewhere if not) and use the small one to remove the the tight cell. Here's a link:
http://t.harborfreight.com/2-pc-rubb...set-69373.html
Keith Pitman
Hi, what I do when confronted with a stuck lenselement, is take a piece op pipe that fits around the element and heat it with a hairdryer. I then take the warm pipe (80 C) and slide it over the stuck element so that it is in contact whit the part of the shutter where te element is threaded in. Wait for a minute, check ik the threaded part is nice and warm, and then unscrew the element. The warmth softens the grimy grit stuck in the thread and it also expands the threaded parts of the shutter and the stuck element. Because the threaded part of the shutter has a slightly larger diameter, it'll expand more, come loose from the element and voila, problem solved!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
[ PD: Sorry, mistaken interpretation ]Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I don't agree with you, at all.
Converted focal length is pretty usable, and not only as a portrait lens.
If there is any doubt about convertible lenses...
"Ansel Adams used a Cooke triple convertible for some of his most famous images according to an article by Gordon Hutchings in View Camera magazine, July/August 2004. Ansel used the 19" (480 mm) component for "Aspens, Northern New Mexico," 1958; both components to get 12" (300 mm) for "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park," 1940; and the 23" (580 mm) component for "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," 1941. Enough said?"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/schneider/150.htm
And yes... it is important to know how to use the converted configuration, specially because focus shift in some shooting conditions.
First try something like a pair of this:
It should be more than enough.
For a very, very severe stuck cell I'd use a dry teflon lube of very high quality like Interflon Food Lube. You may need to protect very well shutter and front and rear elements before spaying, and a later cleaning all very well.
I think that Mr. Fromm meant that you should not disassemble the front group, into its component parts, if you can not remove it as one piece.
\slightly off-topic\ My limited experience with shooting the 180mm convertible Symmar at its 315mm focal length suggests that it's not as bad, converted, as its reputation would suggest. My 300/9 Nikkor-M did outperform it, as one might expect.
OK, sorry... you are right, my apologies to Mr Fromm. I'm not native English and did not understood his good advice.
Also \slightly off-topic\ , of course the 300 M is a technically superior lens than the converted symmar, in special in the corners, then there is the coverage, the focus shift and the need to stop it more to get the sweet point, and the multicoating vs single coating. But nothing of that will limit a good photographer to get a superb image with a converted Symmar.
Thanks for pointing my mistaken interpretation.
Regards
No worries, Pere; here's a story that will explain my comments better.
In 1985 I was newly-hired at Eastman Kodak Co. One of the lenses in the equipment cabinet there was a Schneider 180/5.6 'convertible' Symmar. I had wanted to use a long lens on my 4x5 camera, and it seemed that here was my chance. So I borrowed the lens for a weekend and took it out to the countryside. In my ignorance I removed the *rear* cell and made some pictures. When making contact proofs of the negatives, I found that they were of really poor quality, and gave up on the idea of the 'convertible' lens. (Remember that in those days there was no internet- and information was not easy to come by.) The lens did perform very well as a 180mm on the job; I had no complaints with it. I saved my money and eventually bought my long lens, a Nikkor-M 300/9.
Many years later, c.1999?, the question of convertible lenses came up again, and I realized my past mistake; I should have removed the front cell! So I thought to make a comparison, easy enough to do. And I learned a few things, back to my first point; that the (properly) converted Symmar did a good job, and that the Nikkor-M was superior to it. My test, with landscape subjects at infinity, photographed at small stops, replicated my own usual practice and can only be considered anecdotal. Certainly not a rigorous test...and the surprise was a happy one. But I found out what I needed to know, and have happily used my Nikkor-M ever since.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks