[LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- From: Bob Shaw <rsphotoimages@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:40:25 -0700
I really must agree with Doug.
I was shooting a subject (birds, if you must know...) with the R9
nearly perpendicular to the sun - i.e. just after high noon with the
lens pointing due south.
I was using the 70-180 APO which I have never known to flare.
Yet the viewfinder was a bit hazy for this particular shot which was
wide open at just over the minimum focal distance at 1800mm.
Just by swiveling the camera 5 or 10 degrees away from the the sun on
the same axis (tripod), the contrast in the viewfinder improved.
Predictably, the more I rotated the camera to the west or east, the
better the contrast in the viewfinder.
That's why I think the lens is not the culprit. If it was between 15mm
and 28mm, I might suggest the lens - we all know why.
Try comparing the same sun-drenched scene through the view finder,
pivoting away from the sun and back. I'll bet you see just what I
described above.
Hopefully, you have already shot a roll or two and can actually look at
the negatives or prints - that's the real proof.
Bob in Seattle.
On Oct 23, 2006, at 13:28, telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Not sure I buy his mirror box flare hypothesis=2E
> If the stray sight is hitting the mirror box=20
> is must be coming from somewhere - the lens perhap=3F
I agree it's a hypothesis=2E
I see it most often (with other lenses, too) when the sun is just
outside
the picture area; since the image circle the lens is projecting into
the
mirror chamber is larger than the picture captured (either by film or
by a=
sensor) the image of the sun - within the image circle but outside the
picture area - is on some surface of the mirror box=2E
The ideal mirror box would have perfect black-body surfaces from which
no
light would be reflected; the oposite extreme would be white or
reflective=
surfaces which would send the light from the image of the sun
ricocheting
all over the mirror box=2E The reality of course is somewhere in
between,=
as
black and non-reflective as possible (subject to marketing and cost
cosntraints)=2E My guess is that some of the light from the sun's image
bounces around enough that it's eventually reflected toward the film
where=
it looks like flare=2E
Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www=2Ewildlightphoto=2Ecom
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
- References:
- [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- From: telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
- » [LRflex] Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- » [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- [LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8
- From: telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx