[LRflex] Re: Query: 35mm f2.8

You might consider that it could be reflection off the rear element  
on the sensor. A common problem with Canon and lenses that do not  
have the new coating on the rear element, Canon lenses including.  
However, shooting into the sun has always been the least desirable  
manner of making a photograph, with any lens.
The night shoot is something I've experienced myself with the 35mm  
Elmarit, 1st version, with the highlights getting blown into the  
shadow detail. An effect I liked on BW film when taking shoots at  
twilight.

Slobodan Dimitrov




On Oct 24, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Mattia Gilardi wrote:

>
> On Oct 23, 2006, at 9:48 PM, keith.r.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I don't think the lens should give the result you describe (at
>> least not
>> to the extent you seem to have experienced) so I'll offer another
>> explana=
>> tion
>> to the list of 'possible causes' - is there any evidence of oil on
>> the bl=
>> ades?
>> The one time I saw this sort of thing happen the lens (a 50 mm
>> f1.4) had
>> gone oily - lowers contrast and might lead to the sort of effect
>> you desc=
>> ribe.
>> If it is oily investigate getting it cleaned - if you don't need f2
>> it wi=
>> ll
>> be nearly as good and even if you plan to sell it it will add value.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Keith
>>
>
> Hi,
> first of all, since this is my first message here, I must thank you
> all for providing invaluable content to be lurked by me in the past
> months :-)
> Second, I apologize for my bad English.
>
> I think I have a similar problem in my 35/2 R, late model.
> In difficult situations, it is very flare prone, and a very strange
> one. Sometime ray of light are "curved", sometime are similar to a
> rainbow.
> It is also very sensible to ghost with sun on field or near the
> border of image, and it shows very noticeable red ghosts.
>
> This is true with both film (on a R6.2) and digital (on a Canon 5D).
>
> The serial number is 326xxx, do you think this is normal for this
> lens, and younger ones are better coated or something, or I should
> send my lens to Solms for checking/cleaning, etc.?
> I think so because I have other lenses, even wider, that perform
> much, much, better in similar situations.
>
> Here are some example, some very bad picture that however show the
> problem.
> All three taken with 5D, unretouched, just RAW converted (I repeat,
> though, that with film is the same. Just don'have a scanner :) )
> Sea ones at f8 and night one more open. All three with hood extended.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/mattiag/35summi001.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/mattiag/35summi002.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/mattiag/35summi003.jpg
>
> Best regards and thanks,
> Mattia Gilardi
> ------
> 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/

Other related posts: