Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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