Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Taking Umbrage at John's Lens cap missive
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:14:01 -0500

Your results tell you if you're right about the flare control issue,
John - but the various protection issues are something else again....

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of John
Collier
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:42 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Taking Umbrage at John's Lens cap missive


Yahoo! A heated discussion about something that actually pertains to 
photography. Wait a minute, this even pertains to Leicas! Holy Doodle!

I have lens hoods for all my lenses and, up until about three years 
ago, I would have sooner gone out photographing without film than 
without a lens hood. However, I watched an mpeg of DAH working merrily 
away WITH NO LENS HOOD on his 35/1.4A. After getting over the initial 
shock, and being open minded, I decided to try it myself. My results 
were such that I no longer use this a hood with this lens.

I heard of the Noctilux's flare resistance and deliberately searched 
for an early one with a separate hood so I could leave the hood off. I 
have been very pleased with the Nocti's performance without a hood. I 
know you do not care for the Nocti's look wide open -- I confess that 
at times it does look as though the background is being flushed down a 
toilet -- but it is an absolutely flare proof lens; simply stunning. 
Amazing clarity even right next to overexposed light sources on the 
neg/chrome.

The 24/2.8 is not as good as the above lenses at flare control but it 
is very close. The 21/2.8 is slightly worse again which is why I always 
used a hood with it. The 50/2 is a flare magnet even with its hood in 
place so I always use the Noctilux!

Older lenses need hoods, no doubt about it, but the newer ones can be 
pretty amazing in difficult lighting even without their hoods. Not all 
of them by any account so why not TRY it and see for yourself. No one 
who is really concerned about flare would use anything but a GG back on 
a view camera. Certainly an M camera has to about the worse choice for 
precise flare control.

John Collier

On Dec 10, 2003, at 7:37 AM, B. D. Colen wrote:

> What are lens caps? Do they fit over the end of shades? Because lens 
> shades are the things that belong on the ends of lenses - they 
> eliminate flare (And sorry guys and gals, but even the best, most 
> flare-free lens will flare on occasion), they keep rain and snow off 
> the lens surface if
> it's not blowing right at the camera, the protect the front element 
> from
> bumps and scratches and scrapes, and they keep kindergarteners at bay.
>
> Eric Welch wrote:
>
>> The only one I can think of is they don't understand the benefit.
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2003, at 4:19 AM, Buzz Hausner wrote:
>>
>>> I think if one's going to use anything one should use a shade.  What

>>> is the argument against lens shades?

- --
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

Replies: Reply from John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] Taking Umbrage at John's Lens cap missive)