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
> &
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.
> 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
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
>
> 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 p
ssage -
From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
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
>
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,
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
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 ot
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-landsca
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
>
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
- 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 1
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
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
con
- 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
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 go
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
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 form
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 unnecessar
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 ef
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
- 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 optic
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 exp
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/IM
25 matches
Mail list logo
