Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree that the 12575 certainly helps with side light sources causing veiling glare but it does not help with the flare caused by light tones in the frame. I used a 12575 on mine and still had too much flare from light tones in the frame. For example a white shirt would cause flare and that was with the sun at my back! Again some people have no complaints and even love this lens so it must vary considerably from lens to lens. John Collier On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 08:32 AM, Rolfe Tessem wrote: > grduprey@rockwellcollins.com wrote: >> John >> Thanks for the info. I guess I should have bought the newer lens, >> but the >> price of this one was irresistible. I guess selective photo >> composition is >> the order of the day with this lens to avoid its pit falls. And you >> are >> right the FAT version was before this lens. I probably will >> eventually get >> the 90/2AA when I can afford it, although I will probably get the >> 35/2AA >> next and the 90 later as i have a good telephoto selection in my R >> cameras >> to hold me for awhile. >> Gene > > Gene, > > The 90/2.8 thin TE *demands* a good, deep lens hood. Without one, it > will definitely flare unacceptably. I've found that with one, it works > very, very well. Obviously, others have had other experiences and as > John says, there may be significant sample variation with this lens. I > suggest the 12575 hood, even thought it wasn't originally intended for > this lens. > > Rolfe > > -- > Rolfe Tessem > Lucky Duck Productions, Inc. > rolfe@ldp.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html