Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, I neglected to mention that indeed the smaller lens diameter of the front element on the 55mm Micro-Nikkor is also a factor in reducing the flare potential of the lens, along with the fact that it is so deeply recessed in the lens mount. I was NOT using a filter on my 55 Micro-Nikkor in the highly flare-prone boxing example below. A filter would have protected the lens from the sweat and blood that often gets thrown onto the ringside photographers (and their lenses) during a boxing match - but would have potentially introduced the flare I was trying to avoid. Rob McElroy Buffalo, NY Mark Rabiner wrote: > Rob McElroy wrote: > > <Snip> As an example, years ago when I had to cover a boxing match from ringside while looking straight up into many over-the-ring spotlights, my 50mm slr lens choice was Nikon's 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor because of its very deeply recessed front element. This lens gave results far superior to the flare-prone 50mm f1.4 or f1.2, simply because of the deeply recessed front element. I also once mounted a round two-foot-deep black plastic waste basket on the front of a 600mm f4.0 lens as a lens hood. It worked perfectly to keep the sun off the huge front element. > > > > > Just my two cents of experience. > > > > Good luck, > > Rob McElroy > > Not just a nicely recessed front element on your 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor. > But also a SMALLER front element. > I' hope you'd be reluctant to put a UV filter on the front of THAT lens!! > It in effect makes the front element the size of the filter. And that is very > much the point. > Other than you're introducing an unnesssary additional element to the formula > that is an "affront" :) to it! > > Mark Rabiner > Portland, Oregon > USA