Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2001/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Nathan's PAW 33 and 34
From: Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:06:02 +0200
References: <3B8BFE19.F5351BE2@webshuttle.ch> <008301c13032$5ebe1c60$c5b360d1@alice> <3B8C6F3D.81085FCA@webshuttle.ch> <p05100301b7b3194bad7a@[209.53.33.194]>
Henning, you are right, I goofed. The 695 is indeed the same as 89B. Should have
checked before posting...
Nathan
Henning Wulff wrote:
> According to Heliopan (and Maco) the 695 filter - nominal cutoff at
> 695nm is equivalent to the 89B.
- --
Nathan Wajsman
Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland
e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch
Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/
General photo site: http://belgiangator.tripod.com/
Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/
In reply to:
Message from Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch> ([Leica] Nathan's PAW 33 and 34)
Message from "Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com> (Re: [Leica] Nathan's PAW 33 and 34)
Message from Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch> (Re: [Leica] Nathan's PAW 33 and 34)
Message from Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> (Re: [Leica] Nathan's PAW 33 and 34)