Re: Switar vs. Kinoptic

["Julian Williamson" <julian3rd@earthlink.net>]

Eclair ACL Discussion and Support

--------------------------- ListBot Sponsor --------------------------
Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc:

Barrel distortion on the Switar w/ Aspheron (which comes out to 6mm) is
noticeable, but not bad.

The 5.7mm Kinoptik field of vision is remarkably flat.

Both these have about a 110 degree angle of view, so panning the camera
quickly does give an odd effect.

Interestingly enough, virtually everything from the iris rods to infinity is
in focus when using either of these lenses.

The Kinoptik 5.7 has no focus ring, and the Switar's is set to a preset
position and left there...

Julian

----------
> From: "Marc Syp" <mpsyp@hotmail.com>
> To: EclairACL@listbot.com
> Subject: Switar vs. Kinoptic
> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2001, 4:22 PM

> Eclair ACL Discussion and Support
>
> --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor --------------------------
> Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> How does the barrel distorion compare?
>
> Marc S.
>
>
> > From: "Julian Williamson" <julian3rd@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Marc S:
> >
> > Have not tried the Wiko Wide angle adapter.  But I have frequently used a
> > Switar "Aspheron" -- which screws into the front of the 10mm Switar.  It's
> > expensive, but it's very sharp.
> >
> > Not quite as nice as the 5.7mm Kinoptic, but still very good...
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > ----------
> > >From: "Marc Syp" <mpsyp@hotmail.com>
>
> > > Yeah... I have a Switar 10mm that I love to shoot with.  I would love a
> > > 5.7mm.  As an aside, how does a 10mm Switar + a Wiko .42X Wide angle
> > adapter
> > > compare to an Ang. or Kinoptic equivalent?  Is it even in the same
> > ballpark?
> > >
> > > Anyway, I figured that if a Nikon zoom had better optics than many of
> > the
> > > older Angies, it would be good to have a medium-range (35-80mm) Nikkor
> > in my
> > > camera bag.
> > >
> > > Chris, to answer your questions, the back-focus issue is taken care of
> > by
> > > the mount adapter (Nikon -> C Mount) because C-mount has a much deeper
> > > flange distance.  I would guess that the smaller Nikkors with the
> > adapter
> > > would certainly not be heavier than an Angie 12-120 or 15-150.
> > >
> > > But has anyone tested a newer generation Nikkor against an Angie 12-120
> > or a
> > > Zeiss 10-100?
> > >
> > >
> > > Marc S.
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > To unsubscribe, write to EclairACL-unsubscribe@listbot.com
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > To unsubscribe, write to EclairACL-unsubscribe@listbot.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, write to EclairACL-unsubscribe@listbot.com


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to EclairACL-unsubscribe@listbot.com