Not to get off the NH beaten track any further, but going back to the non vs. single vs. multi coated lenses, I see images like this and I have to wonder if it is the scanner/post-processing or what because the "only" other images on the net that I have seen with this level of color depth and beauty are shots with modern multi-coated lenses.
The original image was scanned on an Imacon 949 at 2,040 ppi (16-bit) and tweaked in Photoshop (3 stage sharpening with PhotoKit Sharpener, curves etc). On the saturation front, the original capture was on Velvia 50 which is one of the most saturated E6 emulsions available. Add in the WT-polarizer and you really do not need to saturate any further in PS (maybe 5-10 on select colors only). In fact, the chrome and the final print (on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl) compare favorably.
[I]/I]I find it a real PITA to use 52mm filters on the back of the lens.
Jay, I prefer to use a 67/77 SUR for mounting filters on the 75 Grandagon and would take the same approach with the 110XL. In fact, all of my lenses have SUR's on the front (Heliopan, I find the B+W's bind far too easily), even the 300mm (100/105 SUR). When I need to use a GND/Polarizer combination I use the Lee wide angle adapters in a single slot configuration with the polarizer 105mm mounting ring on the front. I have not experienced any vignetting with this configuration down to 75mm. For the 55 APO Grandagon, I can add a 86/105 SUR to the CF when I need to polarize (not recommended when there is sky in the image). There is no vignetting with this stacked combination, but there is a ~ 3 stop light loss. If I need a GND filter as well, I just tape it to the front of the polarizer. The 67mm Lee wide angle adapter and single filter slot vignettes on the 55mm, and of course you lose the CF which is essential for this lens when shooting chromes.
Ted, my specs say 200mm IC at life-size magnification. I'll have to go back and double check that. A 180mm is out of the question for field work given the 360mm of bellows extension required for 1:1. It would mean having to swap the bellows and the added draw would be deleterious to the stability of the rig under field conditions.The IC of the Rodenstock is only slightly larger than the Nikkor (277 v. 250 at 1:1).
Bookmarks