Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/23

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Tri-elmar flare
From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:17:05 -0700
References: <000101c3096c$9e213440$dcdc0b50@steveuns>

Steve

Think about it!  When you put a filter on the lens, what the *^#@
good is it to have a recessed lens far behind it?

Jerry

Steve Unsworth wrote:

> Jerry
>
> If I remember correctly Leica say that the lens hood is not needed for the
> 35mm and 50mm focal lengths as the front element is recessed enough not to
> need one. At 28mm the front element is at its most forward and Leica do
> provide a lens hood (at about ˆ120 or so). I bought the lens hood and it has
> seemed to make a difference.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jerry Lehrer
> Sent: 23 April 2003 07:28
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Tri-elmar flare
>
> Al
>
> To be really effective, a hood on that lens should be extensible to three
> different lengths. Or use three different hoods :-)  A bit much, I would
> think.
>
> On zoom lenses we use the longest possible hood that would not vignette on
> the shortest focal length.  Of course it is not the best possible hood for
> the longest focal length.
>
> Jerry
>
> --
> 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

In reply to: Message from "Steve Unsworth" <mail@steveunsworth.co.uk> (RE: [Leica] Re: Tri-elmar flare)