Re: On subject of flare.
Impact damage is totally random. The resultant damage, or not, to a lens depends more on the intensity of the impact, the angle of the impact, the surface area of the impact, and so on, than whether or not a lens is wearing a filter or a hood. People have damaged lenses on which rubber, plastic, and metal hoods were attached, on which there were and were not filters. Buy and use whatever hood and filters you want for the purpose they were designed for, not for protection from a fall or impact damage. Shel [Original Message] From: David Mann On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: It is only logical to prefer to have to replace the filter than go through the hoops replacing the front element. I think any impact that damages a filter is still likely to cause problems within the lens - especially zoom lenses which have more moving parts. My gear is insured (which costs me enough to buy a new lens every year), so accidental breakage is covered in addition to fire/theft/etc. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
I must just confirm Dave's thoughts there; my FA28-105 had to be repaired
after being knocked off a table while travelling in Hong Kong, although the
only visible damage was to the filter ring, the internals were very stiff
afterwards.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: On subject of flare.
On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
It is only logical to prefer to have to
replace the filter than go through the hoops replacing the front
element.
I think any impact that damages a filter is still likely to cause
problems within the lens - especially zoom lenses which have more
moving parts. My gear is insured (which costs me enough to buy a new
lens every year), so accidental breakage is covered in addition to
fire/theft/etc.
Hopefully we won't repeat the filter vs {metal/plastic} hood argument...
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: On subject of flare.
Buy and use whatever hood and filters you want for the purpose they were designed for, not for protection from a fall or impact damage. Shel I think that should be changed to Buy and use whatever hood and filters you want for any purpose you want. Many of us have had lenses protected by filters and hoods from pretty severe knocks - far worse than stubbing out cigarettes, which may be good advertising but is not necessarily good science. I have dropped lenses onto concrete and onto cobbles and seen the filter or hood take the force to such an extent that they have been destroyed, without damaging the lenses at all. Without the filter or hood the lenses would have taken the force, so I am quite satisfied that protection is among the purposes of hoods and filters. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: On subject of flare.
Hi Bob ... And I have seen just the opposite, where neither a hood nor a filter has protected the lens from damage. But yes, buy 'em and use 'em, or not, for whatever reason floats your boat. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W Buy and use whatever hood and filters you want for the purpose they were designed for, not for protection from a fall or impact damage. I think that should be changed to Buy and use whatever hood and filters you want for any purpose you want. Many of us have had lenses protected by filters and hoods from pretty severe knocks - far worse than stubbing out cigarettes, which may be good advertising but is not necessarily good science. I have dropped lenses onto concrete and onto cobbles and seen the filter or hood take the force to such an extent that they have been destroyed, without damaging the lenses at all. Without the filter or hood the lenses would have taken the force, so I am quite satisfied that protection is among the purposes of hoods and filters. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
As a side note... So far I couldn't find a reversing ring for 49 mm diameter in Tel Aviv. Go figure... Pentax Norway had to order mine from Germany last year. :-) Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
I've got a similar problem with mine. Many years ago I had the tripod set up very low to the ground. One of the clamps wasn't done up tight enough, though I thought it was. I turned away and when I turned back the head was very slowly pivoting down and stopped when the end of the lens hit a rock. It only travelled about 50mm but since then the zoom ring is stiff and using the power zoom is a no go. As a matter of fact it happened while taking this picture (or one of the frames either side of it): http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_016.htm But the good news is, the filter rings' paint got scratched and not the lenses. :-) Dave On 6/19/06, John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must just confirm Dave's thoughts there; my FA28-105 had to be repaired after being knocked off a table while travelling in Hong Kong, although the only visible damage was to the filter ring, the internals were very stiff afterwards. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:23:29PM -0600, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: On subject of flare. I have several of them that I've used as table protectors for shot glasses. They're much more useful that way than on the front of a lens. My 600mm lens came with a 112mm filter on the front. The filter is sitting in my wife's display cabinet under a sculpture of a sleeping Rottweiler. William Robb I've purchased both 112mm and 77mm protective filters from members of this group. They've yet to get put on a lens, though - they're just a precaution should I venture into unfriendly environments. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Boris Liberman wrote: I dare say that every lens can be forced to flare. But Pentax lenses are definitely more resilient. I have heard that Pentax stretch the limits of the optical formula they chose for the 43. This makes it more flare-prone that you would like and expect; I have heard internal reflections being mentioned. Others more knowledgeable on the subject may chip in. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Boris Liberman wrote: I dare say that every lens can be forced to flare. But Pentax lenses are definitely more resilient. I have heard that Pentax stretch the limits of the optical formula they chose for the 43. This makes it more flare-prone that you would like and expect; I have heard internal reflections being mentioned. It would have been interesting to see how the lens fared without the extra UV-filter. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Hi! It would have been interesting to see how the lens fared without the extra UV-filter. Jostein I realize that. However I don't take UV filters off my limited lenses as a matter of course... It already proved once its use... Fortunately it was merely Galia's finger, yet I prefer to clean the filter and not the lens. So, practically the filter will always be on. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an unnecessary element and limiting the effectiveness of the lens. However, I can understand that some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from those folk :-). Paul On Jun 18, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! It would have been interesting to see how the lens fared without the extra UV-filter. Jostein I realize that. However I don't take UV filters off my limited lenses as a matter of course... It already proved once its use... Fortunately it was merely Galia's finger, yet I prefer to clean the filter and not the lens. So, practically the filter will always be on. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Paul Stenquist wrote: I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an unnecessary element and limiting the effectiveness of the lens. However, I can understand that some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from those folk :-). Agreed. And the only time I've had to replace a front element (and a 77mm at that), I was very pleasantly surprised to find it's only a fraction of the lens cost... -Ryan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Jostein wrote: From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Boris Liberman wrote: I dare say that every lens can be forced to flare. But Pentax lenses are definitely more resilient. I have heard that Pentax stretch the limits of the optical formula they chose for the 43. This makes it more flare-prone that you would like and expect; I have heard internal reflections being mentioned. It would have been interesting to see how the lens fared without the extra UV-filter. Probably a lot different. I've found the 43 Limited to be exemplary with regards to flare. Some have called it the best lens I ever encountered in some flare tests: http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
At 10:46 AM 18/06/2006 , you wrote: I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I require filtration. However, I can understand that some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from those folk :-). And you end up with a good collection of unused UV filters. :^} Powell -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
On Jun 18, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I require filtration. However, I can understand that some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from those folk :-). And you end up with a good collection of unused UV filters. :^} I have several of them that I've used as table protectors for shot glasses. They're much more useful that way than on the front of a lens. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: On subject of flare. I realize that. However I don't take UV filters off my limited lenses as a matter of course... It already proved once its use... Fortunately it was merely Galia's finger, yet I prefer to clean the filter and not the lens. So, practically the filter will always be on. I was at a sales seminar many years ago. Long enough ago that smoking was still allowed at these things. The Pentax rep was encouraging smokers to butt their cigarettes out on a lens that he had sitting on the table. The SMC coating is remarkably tough. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
I'll sometimes use a filter, although it's rare. Still, I won't give up the ones I have. I'd like to add to my collection of crappy filters - those with scratches, damaged glass, or in any other way useless as filters. If anyone's got such filters and would care to send them my way, please contact me off list. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi I have several [filters] that I've used as table protectors for shot glasses. They're much more useful that way than on the front of a lens. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Yeah, Leica sales reps were known for doing that as well. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb I was at a sales seminar many years ago. Long enough ago that smoking was still allowed at these things. The Pentax rep was encouraging smokers to butt their cigarettes out on a lens that he had sitting on the table. The SMC coating is remarkably tough. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: On subject of flare. I have several of them that I've used as table protectors for shot glasses. They're much more useful that way than on the front of a lens. My 600mm lens came with a 112mm filter on the front. The filter is sitting in my wife's display cabinet under a sculpture of a sleeping Rottweiler. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Hi! Paul Stenquist wrote: I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an unnecessary element and limiting the effectiveness of the lens. However, I can understand that some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from those folk :-). Agreed. And the only time I've had to replace a front element (and a 77mm at that), I was very pleasantly surprised to find it's only a fraction of the lens cost... Ryan, it is the matter of availability. I am darn sure that having to perform the same repair in Israel would have surprised you by its costliness... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Hi! I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an unnecessary element and limiting the effectiveness of the lens. However, I can understand that some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from those folk :-). I'll keep you in mind, Paul, should I decide to change systems ;-). Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Hi! It would have been interesting to see how the lens fared without the extra UV-filter. Probably a lot different. I've found the 43 Limited to be exemplary with regards to flare. Some have called it the best lens I ever encountered in some flare tests: http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml Mark, all my Pentax lenses with perhaps exception of 28-105 IF are extremely resistant to flare. So far I caught flare only once on 43 Lim (you just saw it) and just once on 77 Lim. I say, that it is absolutely excellent. I am not that perfectionist although I definitely am somewhat. To re-iterate - my point, or attempt to make one, was that each lens *can be forced* to flare, while it is *almost* impossible to do with Pentax lenses. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
Hi! I was at a sales seminar many years ago. Long enough ago that smoking was still allowed at these things. The Pentax rep was encouraging smokers to butt their cigarettes out on a lens that he had sitting on the table. The SMC coating is remarkably tough. Bill, I see what you and others are saying. As a matter of fact my exercise in grand enablement with all three Limited lenses has been serious investment for me. So I have to protect it somehow. Another thought. I am tall, not as tall as you, but still I have my 6 feet ;-). The acceleration caused by mother earth attraction is known to be 9.81 m/c^2. And I am known to let things be in gentle care of mother's earth attraction. It is only logical to prefer to have to replace the filter than go through the hoops replacing the front element. As a side note... So far I couldn't find a reversing ring for 49 mm diameter in Tel Aviv. Go figure... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: On subject of flare.
On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
It is only logical to prefer to have to
replace the filter than go through the hoops replacing the front
element.
I think any impact that damages a filter is still likely to cause
problems within the lens - especially zoom lenses which have more
moving parts. My gear is insured (which costs me enough to buy a new
lens every year), so accidental breakage is covered in addition to
fire/theft/etc.
Hopefully we won't repeat the filter vs {metal/plastic} hood argument...
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On subject of flare.
Here... Both taken yesterday evening. The lens was 43 Lim with SMC UV filter attached and hood screwed onto the filter. I'd say typical situation. Nothing extraordinary: http://boris.isra-shop.com/temp/IMGP6220.jpg (notice the artifact just below the bicycle) http://boris.isra-shop.com/temp/IMGP6221.jpg (shot immediately thereafter to see how to remove flare) Both images converted with PS with all automatic settings. No other manipulation except resize and frame. I dare say that every lens can be forced to flare. But Pentax lenses are definitely more resilient. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
