Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- --On Monday, March 24, 2003 4:38 PM +0000 "Beddoe, Neil" <nbeddoe@lehman.com> wrote: >>> Neil, > >>> With all due respect, pointing a lens without a shade attached into the > sun >>> and then calling it "flare-prone" isn't exactly a fair test. I grant >>> you that the shade on the current version 50/2 is something of a joke, >>> since > it >>> doesn't offer as much protection as the older shades and doesn't even >>> lock > >>> in place. I use the screw-in shade made for the current 50/2.8 Elmar >>> which > >>> isn't an ideal solution but it is better than the built-in shade. > >>> Rolfe > > Am I being dense? You asked for an example of veiling flare so I posted > one. You should have asked "Please post an example of veiling flare where > there is no light source outside the field of vision that could be > expected to cause flare in a lens." > > The veiling flare I get when shooting into the sun with my Summicron is > worse than I get with any of my other lenses on any of my cameras. I have > no idea why that is and I don't really care that much as the viewfinder > flares up so much under these circumstances that I can't focus anyway. > > Neil No, you aren't being dense:-). This discussion began whenn someone, I think John Collier, said that his 50/2 exhibited veiling flare when used under normal shooting conditions. I assume he meant with the appropriate shade, otherwise why complain? I'm perfectly aware of what veiling flare *is*; I'm just skeptical that it really is a problem with the 50/2 when used with the shade it is supposed to be used with. Rolfe - -- Rolfe Tessem rolfe@ldp.com Lucky Duck Productions, Inc. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html