Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Rolfe
Thanks for the reply. The first few shots I made were without the hood, I
do have the 12575 which came with it, and several otherwise nice portraits
were ruined by the flare. As you say the hood makes a real difference, but
I noticed just a hint in a couple of shots on the second roll I shot with
it. I guess, now that I know the limits of the lens, I will just compose
around them until I can afford the 90/2 AA lens. I had expected this lens
to be as nice as the 90/2.8 I have for my R4SP which is a real jewel of a
lens.
Gene
Rolfe Tessem <rolfe@ldp.com>
Sent by: To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
owner-leica-users@mejac.palo cc:
-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens help
02/27/2003 09:32 AM
Please respond to
leica-users
grduprey@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> John
>
> Thanks for the info. I guess I should have bought the newer lens, but
the
> price of this one was irresistible. I guess selective photo composition
is
> the order of the day with this lens to avoid its pit falls. And you are
> right the FAT version was before this lens. I probably will eventually
get
> the 90/2AA when I can afford it, although I will probably get the 35/2AA
> next and the 90 later as i have a good telephoto selection in my R
cameras
> to hold me for awhile.
>
> Gene
Gene,
The 90/2.8 thin TE *demands* a good, deep lens hood. Without one, it
will definitely flare unacceptably. I've found that with one, it works
very, very well. Obviously, others have had other experiences and as
John says, there may be significant sample variation with this lens. I
suggest the 12575 hood, even thought it wasn't originally intended for
this lens.
Rolfe
- --
Rolfe Tessem
Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
rolfe@ldp.com
- --
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