Lens Flare Test Results
Prime Lenses (by Mfger)
Prime Lenses (by results)
Zoom Lenses (by Mfger)

Lens flare is unwanted light, usually from internal reflections in the lens and camera body, which adversely affects the on-film image.

Generally, we can identify two forms of lens flare. The first is a diffuse reflection of light which is most apparent in its effects in reducing the contrast in shadow areas in your image and the vividness or snap of colors.

The second form of lens flare is a dramatic and bright blob of light, often in the shape of an hexagonal image of the diaphragm aperture blades. This flare is often associated with shooting directly into a bright light source such as the sun. Basically, light is bouncing around off the glass and metal in your camera, and even off the film during the exposure. Some of this reflected light reaches and bounces off the lens' diaphragm blades, creating this hexagonal shaped blob or flare of light on your picture.

Since this form of flare is a usually deliberate artistic effect, we won't worry about it further here. You can usually see this flare effect prior to shooting, and adjust the lens towards wide open to maximize the effect, or stop down to get rid of it.

In the accompanying Lens Flare Test Results Table, some 70-odd lens flare test for some older prime 35mm lenses are reported. The average lens flare was just under 1.5%. Thanks to multi-coating, a number of multi-element normal lenses had flare levels under that of a single lens element (i.e., flare under 0.6%). By contrast, the average flare for zoom lenses was 3.9%! So one obvious flare reducing strategy is to use prime lenses with fewer elements over a zoom when you are in a flare-prone situation.

Flare levels increased as you stopped down both a Canon prime 50mm f/1.4 lens and especially any of the zoom lenses tested. Multicoated lenses showed lower average amounts of flare, as you would expect. Surprisingly, a low cost Soligor 55-135mm f3.5 zoom had lower flare levels than an OEM Zuiko 50-90mm f3.5 zoom! Unfortunately, the best flare performance of the Vivitar 80-205mm f3.8 zoom was worse than 90%+ of the prime lenses, including many much older lenses. While this Vivitar zoom's longest 205mm setting had its worst flare result (at 5.7%+), the worst zoom tested reached 9.37% flare levels!

If you shoot directly into the sun, or other very bright and reflective light source, you may get a bright arc of flare light on your image. These bright hot spots are best eliminated by either adjusting your aperture or position to reduce or eliminate them. A lens hood is an excellent tool to reduce or eliminate off-axis light sources. In some cases, you can hold our your hand, a hat, or other object to cast a shadow on your lens front, thereby reducing these effects too.

An exception to the above trick happens with ultra-wide and especially fisheye lenses and fisheye adapters. These lenses take in from 100 to 180 degrees or more of picture area. That huge coverage makes it very difficult to keep the sun (or your shadow) out of the picture. Lens hoods for ultra-wide and fisheye lenses are usually non-existent or very limited in size and effect. For examples of this type of flare, see fisheye photos page. To avoid this flare, you need to carefully position the sun out of your picture, or shoot on cloudy days!

Modern multi-coated lenses greatly reduce lens flare. A very thin coating of various magnesium and calcium compounds (e.g., calcium fluoride) reduces the amount of light reflected from various lens elements. Typically, this coating is a quarter of the thickness of the wavelength of light. The reflected light standing waves cancel out in the coating, reducing the amount of reflected light. Since different colors of light have different wavelengths, multiple coatings of different thicknesses are slightly more effective than a single coating. So a single coating can reduce reflections significantly, while multiple coatings will improve on that effect slightly. See table below and Lens Recoating FAQ for more details.

If you must use uncoated lenses, you will find that use of a lens hood is a useful accessory to reduce flare. Lens hoods are recommended because they help greatly reduce the just off-axis light entering the lens. This off-axis light can readily bounce off the glass and metal elements in the lens, resulting in lens flare. This reflected light is usually diffused over the image, most noticeably reducing contrast in your image. In a few cases, you may experience a direct reflection of an off-axis light source (e.g., the sun) onto your film as a bright blob of light. Ouch!

Most lenses have flat black paint applied to their glass element edges and to the inner metal barrels of the lens too. Light absorbing baffles are also used in some designs to reduce or absorb stray light. This same black light absorbing material approach is used inside the body of most cameras, to further reduce off-axis light.

Off-axis light is most pronounced with many telephoto and closeup lens designs, as well as with the use of teleconverters.

The following section is an update [9/2001] based on Modern Photography's Multicoating: Asset or Gimmick article by Bennett Sherman and Hiroshi Kimata in June 1975 (p. 90..147]. I highly recommend you read the entire article if you have access, but if not see our exerpts on our multicoatings pages. 

Veiling Glare

Veiling glare is one of the major sources of flare and loss of contrast in lenses.  This factor is highest in the uncoated lenses, and least in the multi-coated and singly coated lenses.  Recall that the light reflected from the air-glass interfaces is circa 5% in uncoated lenses, under 1% in many coated and multicoated lenses. That light has to go somewhere. Some stray light is reflected out of the lens and back towards the subject or other external objects. Other stray light rays may end up absorbed in black baffling or inner barrel and lens edge paint designed to absorb light and cut flare. But if you aren't lucky, some of that reflected light is going to be sprayed around onto the film.  

The major impact of this general diffuse stray flare light source is to reduce the contrast of your images. So your shadow areas will be rather less solid black, and a bit more grey due to stray and reflected light on the film. Veiling glare results in loss of contrast overall, rather than a specific blob or artifact of light on your film.

Artistic Flare

The source of the reflections of bright light sources such as the sun or street lights at night should now be obvious. These bright light sources are reflecting off the glass elements (and other internal parts of the lens, including perhaps shiny lens mounts (see Kiev-88 notes). The bright reflected patterns can be used artistically. Most viewers are used to seeing them in various television and other movie situations too. This source of flare can be controlled in part by stopping down, and by changing angles or use of lens hoods and other efforts. 

Ghosts

Where do those hexagonal lens diaphragm ghosts come from?  Light bouncing off the reflective glass and metal (and film) surfaces reflects back through the hexagonal diaphragm opening.  The light then reflects off the reflective glass surfaces beyond the diaphragm back into the lens towards the film. The result is a bright hexagonal diaphragm shaped blob of light on your film, especially where the background is darker.

You may even notice some odd colorations of these ghostly flare spots.  Recall that the reflected light causing these ghosts is not passing through all the lens elements, but only a few around and in front of the diaphragm.  These lens elements may not be fully corrected for color aberrations standing by themselves, but only in combination with all the other lens elements in the full lens design. So if you see colored patterns in these ghostly images, including rainbow style effects, that's one reason why.  Similarly, you can have multiple reflections from multiple elements, giving rise to multiple and even overlapping ghosts.

"The uncoated 100mm yields continuously overlapping hexagonal images from the diaphragm blades through the entire picture area...  How would this appear in an actual picture you take? If you photograph a dark subject against a bright background, these ghost images will be mistaken for general flare."  [Ed. note: i.e., veiling glare] [Ibid., p. 94]

Ghost image potential seems to be highest where you have one or more flat glass surfaces. Many lenses use lens elements in which one side of the lens element is curved, but the other is flat, to simplify lens manufacture and lower costs. But such a flat lens surface design acts as a series of parallel reflecting mirrors, letting light bounce back and forth between these flat and reflective surfaces. As you might expect, this can be a recipe for high levels of ghosting and lens diaphragm flare images. 

Other kinds of ghost flare can be seen, and identified as to source. For example, the lack of good lens edge blackening and barrel blackening and baffling can cause circles or rings of light to be reflected from this source. The black dust seen in some lenses may be due in part to the wearing off of this protective black paint from the lens mechanical mounting or internal elements. 

Some Laboratory Observations and Tests

If the thickness of any layer is off by as little as 5 percent of the required thickness, the entire coating will be bad - strong reflections will be noticed on one or more colors. ..A bad job of multicoating can ruin a lens and prove to be far worse than no coating at all. We have seen poorly multicoated optics which produced violently yellow pictures. [Ibid., p. 138]

Even though some lens manufacturers do not indicate on the lens whether it is multicoated or not, you can tell in most cases. You take the lens, remove its front and back caps, and open it to full aperture.  Hold the lens under a bright light source, such as an overhead bulb, so that the bulb will reflect on the surfaces of the lens elements. Look down into the lens at these reflections. If all the reflections are light amber or blue, the lens is single-coated. But if some are light amber or blue, and others are deep magenta, dark green or a deep reddish yellow, the lens has multicoated elements. [Ibid., p. 138]

Since four is the minimum required for so-called multicoating, Minolta's double or triple coatings are not advertised as multicoatings. [Ibid., p. 147]

Multicoating improved light transmission by only 1/2 f/stop or less over single coating. Flare elimination was very minimal at most. Ghosts were minimized by multicoating, principally in many-element lenses. [Ibid., p. 147]

Some lenses are faulted for having lots of lens flare, when in fact the camera bodies are really to blame. In medium format cameras, the Kiev-88 lenses were often identified as flare-prone lenses. In fact, many of these lenses were originally produced in uncoated versions, so such critiques were probably valid early on. Later lenses were much improved, with multicoated models now available, and these lenses will have much less internal flare. However, the Kiev-88 bodies have only recently been subject to rigorous internal black floculation to absorb light. Other light leaks sources include the camera's removable backs.

So these Kiev cameras and lenses are often identified as flare-prone designs. Yet if you remount these same multi-coated Kiev lenses into another body mount (e.g., Rollei SL66), they perform well with minimal flare problems. My point here is that flare is often caused more by bright and reflective spots in the camera body than in the lens, and especially so for some camera body models.

Contrary to some popular recommendations, putting a multi-coated filter in front of an uncoated lens does nothing for reducing flare in the uncoated lens. Actually, my experience is that much more contrast reduction occurs from using a dirty filter or lens than from any lack of filter multi-coating. A fingerprint on your lens or filter can reduce image contrast by as much as 20 per cent, according to some Popular Photography tests. See Filters FAQ for more details.

I should also mention that uncoated lenses are also capable picture takers in most situations. Most older uncoated lenses also have relatively simple designs involving only four to six elements. By using a lens hood, you can often use these lenses to produce fine photographs. Some experimenting will be needed to see what effect bright light sources on-axis (in the picture) and off-axis (just outside the picture) will have on your image.

Due to the high cost of multi-coating lenses, some lenses are now being produced without multi-coating to reduce costs. The Nikon series-E lenses are often cited as single-coated lens of simple but effective design that work well despite their lack of multi-coating. So if you get a single coated older optic, it is often quite capable and less subject to lens flare than any uncoated similar design. The extra benefits of multi-coating may only be a modest reduction in contrast over a single coated lens.

The usual place where multicoating really helps is where you have many lens elements from which reflections can take place. Such many element designs are usually found in complex zoom lenses and a few retro-focus wide angle prime lenses. Here, I would definitely recommend a multi-coated design over a single coated design. The cumulative effect of internal reflections from more elements can add up to greater contrast reduction in your photos. The table above shows how a multi-coated zoom lens (of 14 elements) can theoretically improve light transmission by 50% over a single coated zoom lens.

Lens Hoods

Most photographers confidently use the wrong lens hood, thereby losing much of the benefits from using a lens hood in reducing lens flare. The lens hood needs to meet two parameters.

First, it has to be long enough to do the job. As a rule of thumb, a lens hood needs to be as long as the focal length of the lens to be fully effective. Surprise!

Most of today's long telephoto lenses have a very short integral lens hood that slides forward a mere inch or two in front of the lens. I'm sorry, but a one inch lens hood simply is inadequate for a 300mm focal length lens, even if it is built into the lens itself.

You will often see professionals deploying a really long homemade lens hood for their long telephotos when conditions warrant minimizing lens flare. Expanding or compendium lens hoods are also used to provide an adjustable and optimized length of lens flare protection (as well as a holder for various filter systems).

The second requirement for a lens hood is that it be the right shape for the job. One part of that shape is the proper angle so the lens isn't vignetted or blocked at the edges by the lens hood getting into the picture. For prime optics from OEM makers like Nikon or Canon, you can often buy a particular lens hood which is optimized for the angle of that particular focal length and aperture lens design. The length of the lens hood is usually a compromise between convenience and efficiency, with less compromise in the wide angle shorter lens hoods and more in the longer telephoto lens hood designs.

The shape of the lens hood is also important to minimizing excess light. Most 35mm lens hoods are circular, while the format is a rectangular 2x3 image. By contrast, lens hoods for professional 6x6 equipment (e.g., Hasselblad) are usually square, with a bayonet mounting system to ensure proper alignment and easy on-off usage. A second inner bayonet mount on the Hasselblad lenses is used for filter mounting. This dual mount approach has obvious benefits that I miss when using my 35mm systems!

One reason that 35mm lens hoods are round is that most lens designs feature rotating front elements, so using a round lens hood is necessary to prevent vignetting. Who wants to fiddle with rotating the lens hood, or getting pictures with corners cut off? So we compromise on a less than optimal lens hood design which is neither the right shape nor the right length.

A popular trick question on photography course exams is do you need a lens hood at night? Since the sun is usually thought to be the main source of flare, many students answer no. Wrong! You may need a lens hood more at night than during the day, as there are often many bright off-axis lights during a longer night exposure. These flare producing light sources are often hard to identify in a scene, at least before you get your pictures back with these flare sources all over them!

Another popular trick to reduce hot spots and flare in your photos is the use of a polarizing filter. The polarizing filter is very effective in reducing glare and speculative hot-spots from bright, shiny surfaces. You can use your polarizer even on overcast days, especially around water and foliage as well as glass and shiny metal surfaces. The polarizer will often remove hard to notice glare in your photographs, improving contrast and color saturation considerably. So keep that polarizer handy for glare-busting!

Summary

Lens flare can be greatly reduced by taking a few simple actions. Use of a coated or preferably multi-coated lens design will greatly reduce lens flare when shooting into bright light sources. A proper lens hood, of the correct angle, length, and shape to minimize off-axis light sources, is very helpful too. Lens hoods need to be long enough to do the job, but not cause vignetting due to improper design or use. Careful checking in your viewfinder will enable you to stop down so flare and ghost image effects are minimized. Finally, you can compose your photos to remove bright light sources and reflections. With care, you can beat flare!

An article titled Camera Flare: The Real Enemy? by Bennet Bodenstein and Herbert Keppler in Modern Photography, January 1972 (pp. 86-98) concluded that much of what we call lens flare is really body flare!

They built a flare test setup using an 18 per cent grey card at the center of a 2x3 format frame of black mat material. Around their setup they placed some bright fluorescent light fixtures. Now they moved the camera so the light sources were just outside the picture area.

Unfortunately, the only way you can exonerate the lens from causing lens flare is to show that the body is the source of flare. To do that, you have to mount the same lens on different bodies.

If you have seen our Lens Mount Adapter FAQ and interchangeable mounts page, you will be able to see how we could mount certain lenses in different bodies. Screw-mount M42 thread lenses and bodies might be one good series of candidates, and interchangeable mounts could be another option.

When you do this, and take photos of a flare-inducing image, you can show how lens flare is more often body flare!

Moreover, the pattern of flare will vary from one body to the next with the same lens. This change of flare patterns makes sense only if the body is the culprit. In fact, it is all the metal and mirrors and shiny objects in the body that may be causing the differences you would observe in distribution and patterns of lens flare.

This observation partially explains why some lenses, famous for flare, such as the Kiev88 medium format optics, behave so differently when adapted for another body.

Shutterbug's Editor, Mr. Bob Shell, adapted some of these Kiev-88 lenses to another body, and confirmed that:

Flare problems with older Kiev MF bodies are well known. I use my Kiev lenses on my Mamiya 645 Pro with an adapter and have NO flare problems. Same lenses on my old Kiev 88, mucho flare. Same lenses on late Kiev 88 with internal flocking, much less flare. The lenses are not at fault.

(see Kiev 88 related postings for more examples on Kiev flare)

The good news here is that if your body is the source of flare, you may be able to do something to minimize it! As with the Kiev-88 cameras, black flocking applied to the interior of the camera can greatly reduce the amount of flare users will get.

Similarly, you may be able to locate the source of camera flare in a bright lens mount ring, a worn patch or bright shiny interior in your camera's mirror-box, or other location. A skilled repair-person may be able to reach and add flat black paint or black flocking to bright and shiny areas in your camera body. The result could be a definite and major improvement in flare performance!

Modern Photography of March, 1983 p. 79 has a note by D.E. Cox on using a shower cap as a variable lens cap that fits over lens hoods too, even ones with 3" or large elements and sizes. The shower caps are available in colors too, cheaply ($1-2).

Modern Photography of August 1983 (p. 79) How to has a note on using sweat bands from tennis to protect lenses too.

Related Postings

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: " Dante A. Stella" dante@umich.edu
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998
Subject: Re: MC filter on Single Coated lens?

> I've got a couple of older single coated lenses, and was wondering if
> buying a nice MCUV filter would help control flare? 

No. Flare comes from two places - dispersion at air/glass interfaces and from total internal reflection (light comes in at an angle and bounces around in the glass). It can be controlled through lens design and coatings.

Coated lenses transmit (0.98)^N of the light (where N is the number of coated glass/air surfaces). Even if MC filters could transmit 100%, you would still have to content with all the other elements. Just use a lens shade instead. As far as I can tell, SMC is a placebo.

Dante

From: Brian Ellis beellis@gte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Flare
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998

There are a variety of adjustable lens hoods on the market. Lee makes one (the one I use), as does Calumet and probably others that don't come to mind immediately. With the Lee system you buy a retaining ring for each different diameter of your lenses, put the ring on the lens, and then attach the hood. The hood extends out for perhaps as much as eight to ten inches (I've never measured it). Obviously, however, when you start extending the hood out this far you have to be very careful about vignetting. The hood sells for about $100 and is sold by B&H; among others. Calumet's system is described in their catalog.

From: ewindell@psci.net (Gene Windell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Questions regarding "Flare"
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998

vikenk@aol.com (VikenK) wrote:

> Hi. I've got a question regarding flare. As I understand it, flare is
>excess light that "bounces around" in the lens barrel, and can cause a  lack of
>contrast and also make rainbow like double images of bright points of light.

"Excess light" is any light striking the front surfact of the lens which is not required to form the subject image on film. For example, a 50mm standard lens may have a 46 degree angle of view. Yet light which is within an arc of about 160 degrees may be able to strike the front surface of the lens. An effective lens hood shades the front surface of the lens from all of the light outside the 46 degree angle of view. The more narrow the angle of view, the longer the lens hood can be and the more effective shading it can provide. Ideally, if the lens has a 46 degree angle of view the lens shade will prevent all the light from outside the 46 degree arc from striking the front surface of the lens. Some lenses receive more natural shading from the lens barrel than others. If two 50mm lenses from the same manufacturer are examined, one a f/1.7 version and the other a f/1.4 version, the front element of the f/1.7 version will be smaller and more deeply recessed into the lens barrel than the f/1.4 version. From this one may conclude that the f/1.4 version is more prone to lens flare and requires a longer lens shade for optimum performance.

> My question is: Can I see the flare in the viewfinder before I snap the picture?

Lens flare is not necessarily visible in the viewfinder. It may be evident in the final print as nothing more than a reduction of color saturation, or an overall lightening of the print which could be mistaken as exposure error. Visible ghost images, reflections and aperture artifacts are most likely to result from strong point light sources, such as the sun or an incandescent light bulbs, casting their image anywhere on the front surface of the lens.

>My lens has a 72mm filter size and I was playing with it in the house the other
>day. I wasn't standing directly under the ceiling light, but I was  close. I'm
>my viewfinder I saw several light reflections, as if I was looking at a
>flashlight beam thru triple pane glass. Is this flare? I never saw a reflection
>like that with my old lens, but the lens filter size was 55mm. lens

Attaching a filter to the front of the lens eliminates any natural shading from the lens barrel and invites lens flare. All other things being equal, a lens equipped with a filter will require a longer lens shade than a lens without a filter. Because wide-angle lenses have a wider angle of view forming the image, the lens shade must necessarily be shorter to avoid vignetting. When a filter is attached to the lens, it in effect becomes the front element - reducing the effectiveness of whatever lens shade may be attached. Rectangular lens shades which clamp-on to the outside of the lens barrel are most effective in these applications, though they are inconvenient to use if the lens barrel rotates or with rotating polarizing filters.

>  It seems that the bigger a lens surface is, the more likely it is to
> experience flare. Am I right?

Fast normal lenses, wide-angle lenses, and telephoto lenses are prone to lens flare because the relatively large front element receives very little natural shading from the lens barrel. Attaching a filter exacerbates the problem, and requires a proportionately longer lens shade - perhaps to the extent that it enters the angle of view of the lens and causes vignetting.

Lenses which zoom from the wide-angle to telephoto range are the most difficult to shade. This is because the length of an effective shade for the telephoto end of the zoom range will cause vignetting at the wide-angle end. Consequently, this type of lens is the most prone to lens flare. And attaching a filter still exacerbates the problem.

In summary, if the objective is to achieve maximum lens flare and degraded image quality - use a wide to tele zoom and attach a filter to "protect" the lens.

Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Rollei] lens hood for 6000 schneiders...

Bob wrote:

>Actually, in the case of the 180 I'm shooting with a little flare might be
>beneficial.  The lens is so damned contrasty that for use in my glamour
>shooting I will have to put some diffusion on it.  I tried it on a model
>without any diffusion or hood and it was just far too harsh.  Made every
>tiny imperfection in her makeup jump out like a major flaw and made the
>chromes completely unusable without computer manipulation.  The Mamiya
>lenses I use most of the time (N/L ones) are razor sharp but not nearly as
>contrasty and therefore not as harsh.  Maximum contrast in a lens is not
>always a good thing.
>
>       Bob,
>  You find the 180 very contrasty?  I don't find it anymore contrasty than any
>other lens I own and according to the MTF charts, the 180 2.8 schneider is
>actually slightly lower contrast than say the 150 sonnar.  ( my  understanding
>of the MTF charts is that the bottom scale is usally a good indicator of  lens
>contrast.)
>       Are there any resolution charts for the rollei lenses, especially the
>schneiders? I'd love to see how they resolve LP/MM.   How would you compare
>the 180 2.8 tele xenar to the 150 f4 schneider tele xenar?
>       Thanks,
>Brian          

I think maybe two things are being confounded. Lens "contrast" can refer to the amount of flare or the acutance or sharpness of edges. Flare is affected by lens coatings and also the inside of the camera. Actually, lens hoods have more effect on light scattered inside the camera body than they do on anything happening in the lens, provided the lens mounting is baffled correctly.

Spherical aberration can also mimic flare since it spreads out highlights and ,when there is a lot of it, can cause an overall haze. This is the basis for most soft-focus lenses. The MTF curve, and the acuatance is affected by both third order spherical and by higher order aberrations. It is the choice of balance of higer order spherical and other corrections which makes the difference between a lens with high resolution and one with high edge contrast.

As glass types get better and design procedures become more exact with the help of computer optimising programs, the compromise becomes less.

As far as Rollei's claim, it may in fact make sense. If the camera interior is baffled well (as are late TLR's) to prevent scattering of non-image light, and the lens mounting is baffled properly to prevent light from scattering from the interior surfaces of the cells and shutter an exterior lens shade may not make much if any difference.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Coating lens

you wrote:

>>This exchange is from the Zeiss collector's list. The question has been
>>asked many times on this list as well, so I post it for your
>>information...
>>
>>Mario Nagano asked:
>>
>>> > I was just wondering if pre-war uncoated lenses like CZJ Tessar
>>> > lenses could be coated to improve their performance.
>>
>>and Yi-Chin Fang responded:                     
>>
>>> Dear Sir:
>>>        As a Ph.D.candidate of optics design, MTF test and Zeiss
>>> collector, I have to say that it is not worthwhile to recoat your  lens. If
>>> you want to recoat your lens, lens must be repolished it again, which
>>> might lose the accurancy of optical tolerance even decentering. The
>>> accurancy of optical tolerance plays the role of the wonderful
>>> classical-design optics lens made before 1975.
>>>        The coating might reduce the inter-reflection and enhance the
>>> energy transmission. It works when the lens aim at the point light when
>>> photography work goes through. It is important but I have to say that no
>>> lens is absolutely perfect for every working condition even the great
>>> Zeiss modern lens. I suggest that you might avoid the back light
>>> photography with the lens without coating or only single coated.
>>>
>>> >   Could it minimize flare problems?
>>>                                              
>>> Impossible.  As far as I'm concerned, flare is mostly due to
>>> aberration.
>>>
>
>Maybe this is a language problem, but I have no idea what he is talking
>about.  Flare, more technically referred to as veiling glare, is caused by
>reflection of light from internal surfaces in the lens (lens flare) as well
>as by reflections inside the camera body.  This has nothing to do with
>optical aberrations, per se, although some optical designs are obviously
>more prone to flare than others.
>
>Bob

Hi Bob, Spherical aberration can produce an overall haze which mimics flare. This haze is dependent of the stop and goes away when the lens is stopped down. Not all lenses exhibit this. I certainly agree that most flare is from multiple reflections in lenses and a great deal is also from light scattered around inside cameras, especially when the image circle of the lens is much larger than the film and there is no means of baffling it in the camera. Roleiflex TLR's and Rolleicords starting with the IV have very effective internal baffling. Lenses should also have effective internal baffles to prevent light from being scattered by the inside of the lens mounting. I have, for instance, a couple of Ilex lenses which are not properly baffled and have severe flare until stopped down enough to vignette the edge reflections.

As far as lens performance, coating will improve contrast somewht and reduce ghost images in lenses which produce them, but has no effect whatever on lens corrections. Coating does make practical designs with a multitude of glass-air surfaces, many high performance modern lenses fall into this catagory.

The improvement from coating a lens like a Tessar is modest.

I suspect that when a lens is considerably improved by coating or re-coating it is because of something ancillary to the process such as re-cementing or even thorough cleaning. Many lenses develop a haze over their internal surfaces. This haze quite noticably reduces contrast. Since the internal surfaces of lenses are often hard to get at these surfaces never get cleaned. I hasten to point out that I don't mean only those surfaces facing the shutter. Rather the sealed ones in the front of a Tessar, for instance. Shining a flashlight through the lens will show up this sort of thing right away.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: erwin1@my-dejanews.com
[1] Re: hoods
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998

i find them invaluable for protection against the elements like waterfall spray, and against me knocking the lens into something. The hood will absorb the shock. Which is why i like snap on hoods that will snap off when theres an impact rather than those screw on tightly or built in hoods which just translate the impact to the lens :)

For an opposing point of view, quite a few landscape pros don't use hoods (or at least or the standard ones). Even though hoods cut out some reflections, they also cause their own reflections. Instead, they use things like very big hats :) [and you wondered why some landscape photographers have such big hats]

instead of putting on and off the lenscap. I just stuff my slr into my Lowe topload zoom bag and leave the flaps open. That way, my lens and camera is protected, and I'm ready for action faster than a person who has to take off his lenscap and put it in his pocket. (or worse, someone who forgets his lenscap his on)

[Test for Vignetting of Lens Hoods]
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: mcminn@mail.idt.net (Logan McMinn)
[1] Re: Vignetting
Date: Sat Oct 31 1998

If you are shooting with an SLR, you can see vignetting best by stopping the lens down to the smallest f-stop and using the depth of field preview button (if you have one). Vignetting which would be hardly noticeable with the lens wide open becomes very obvious at the smallest aperture.

[Ed. note: on the value of lens hoods...]
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998
From: Joe McCary - Photo Response mccary@erols.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Hand Shooting

On a recent trip to the UK this past July, I was off in the SW corner of Wales, St. David's Head, and saw this nice small fishing port and its deep water harbor. I decided that it was a must picture (vacation of course). I grabbed my Leica M-6 and the 35mm lens and my SWCM and a tripod, Minolta Spot meter. Off I went scampering up this narrowing and ever steeper trail on one side. After a few hundred yards I was about 125' above the water and had a wonderful view. I shot several images on both cameras. The Leica's 35mm had a lens shade but no filter, the SWCM had a polarizer and a lens shade (plastic square). I started back down. I passed the difficult part with jagged rocks and steep embankment. BUT just a few yards past that, just as if something or someone reached out and grabbed my feet I was falling forward with both cam,eras around my neck! I fell head first onto sharp rocks with the cameras both lens forward (there was NOTHING I could do at this point) I rolled over about 3 times, attempting NOT to fall into the water about 100' below. When I stopped just short of taking a bath, I dusted myself off and looked straight to the lenses which I imagined were both cracked. The shade on the Leica (a small metal one) was completely smashed, but the lens was intact and operated as smooth as ever. The SWCM (my most prized lens/camera) had a broken $100 shade and the filter was fine, not even a scratch, the lens itself also was fine and again operating smoothly. Both lenses have proved to be as sharp as ever and in perfect operating order. I relay this post to point out the protective barrier that a good lens shade offers.

Joe McCary
Photo Response

From: Ron Ginsberg ginsb001@minn.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Vignetting
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998

The viewfinder percentage of frame viewing must be taken into account here on some cameras since quite a few may not show enough of the frame corners for evaluation.

Logan McMinn wrote:

> If you are shooting with an SLR, you can see vignetting best by stopping
> the lens down to the smallest f-stop and using the depth of field  preview   
> button (if you have one).  Vignetting which would be hardly noticeable with
> the lens wide open becomes very obvious at the smallest aperture.
>

From: dlmatt@canopus.bu.edu (David Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hood question
Date: 11 Nov 1998

Why is a metal hood considered better than a rubber one?

It can be designed to have its edge just outside the picture, since it holds its shape well, whereas rubber ones always get out of shape and so must have their edges _way_ outside the picture, or the distortion will have you taking a picture of part of the hood.

David Matthews

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Rod Alley 2sapoton@peak.org
Subject: Response to Best Lens Hood/Bellows Shade?
Date: 1998-12-02

I'm not aware of a Cokin-P-compatible version of the Lee system. I briefly owned the Lee 4" system with bellows shade. It seemed very well made, but I couldn't use it with my Horseman VH-R. There wasn't sufficient clearance between the lens axis and the bed of the field to use the Lee bellows. I now use two rubber lensshades, one normal and one wide-angle, instead.

Horseman makes, or at least lists on the Horseman webpage, its own bellows shade for the VH, VH-R and similar 4x5 field cameras. That might be worth a look. I don't know about the other alternatives you list.

Good luck,
Rod Alley

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998
From: Douglas Braun doug.braun@intel.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Flare reduction in MX body

Doug Braun

>Is there any simple but effective way to reduce internal reflections (those
>in the body itself, not the lens) in an MX produced before the
>incorporation of baffles?  

I noticed this problem in my Automat, so I found some black velvet-flocked paper (at an art-supply store), and cut a small trapezoidal piece and glued in the bottom of the space between the film and the lens. The bottom is the biggest flare-producer, since that is where the image of the sun or bright sky would fall.

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: nikon-digest V4 #153 [v04.n154/19]

....

>I am currently in the market for some new equipment, one (minor)
>item of which is a 62mm Nikon circular polarizer, I also want to get
>a lens cap to fit. Not knowing the outer thread size, I just stated
>the requirement and let the potential suppliers come back. These
>are the responses:
>
>B+H : Not available
>Adorama: $8
>M&M: Visit Wal-Mart and check out the tupperware pot lids.
>
>Comments?

The outer threads of all Nikon pol filters are non-standard sizes. I believe the outer rim of the 62mm filter is 70mm. I know the outer rim of the 52mm circ pol is 60mm. What I suggest is buy the filter and the matched HN-26 hood and follow M&M;'s advice (which I first heard suggested long ago at a Nikon School) & go the Tupperware route. For instance, I keep Nikon hoods on all my Nikon lenses and rather than unscrew each at the end of every job simply to add lens caps, I have a Tupperware cap (from their 8 oz tumbler set) on each, except on the hood of my 20/4 which uses either a Pringles cap or the lid from a can of tennis balls.

By the way, M&M; is no longer in business. Manny (the "M" from M&M;) has joined B&H;'s staff.

regards,
Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From: Brian Ellis beellis@gte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Compendium Lens Shade
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998

Robert - The Lee system is based on screwing an adapter onto the lens. The lens shade then is attached to the adapter. Therefore, whether the Lee system will work with your 120 lens depends on the filter diameter of the lens and whether Lee makes an adapter for that filter diameter. Lee makes quite a few adapters so my guess is that they probably make one that will fit your lens unless it has a really odd ball filter diameter but obviously I can't be sure without knowing the filter diameter of your lens. FWIW, I've been using the Lee system for about two years and I'm reasonably pleased with it. Brian

Robert McBride wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm trying to assemble a large format outfit.  I have a 5x7 B&J field
> camera that I would like to replace later.  What I would like to have
> now is a compendium shade.  I was wondering if anyone knew of a shade
> that would fit this camera.     If B&J did not make one, was thinking
> that possibly a more resent manufacturer makes one that fits and that
> later I could purchase that make of camera to replace that B&J that I
> consider only fair in performance. I have looked at the Lee Filter
> System and don't know if it will work with a 120 mm.
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> RM

From: bob@bobshell.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE YOUR
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998

esquire@.clear.net.nz wrote:

> I'll have to say that little unknown factory out in Taiwan (or was that
> Thailand). great lens cap. they seem to make it for everyone.

It is a little-known fact that using cheap third-party lens caps is dangerous to the health of your lenses. Plasticizer fumes from some of them will strip the multicoating right off the front of your lens, greatly reducing the contrast in your images. Stick with proper name-brand caps to be safe.

Bob

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Andrew Booth ab@albooth.demon.co.uk
Subject: Response to Low contrast - good sharpness, how to get it?
Date: 1998-12-21

Ryszard, there's been a previous thread on Tiffen ultra-contrast filters (and this thread contains links to several other threads). These filters actually introduce flare so as to cut down contrast. This may be what you want.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Gene Crumpler nikonguy@emji.net
Subject: Response to UV filters....leave them on, or take them off.
Date: 1999-01-09

I have used filters to protect the lenses on both 35mm and MF in the past and I usually removed them to shoot. Currently, I've aquired lens hoods for the 8 or so lenses that I use with any frequency and these provide a great deal of protection, so I don't use the UV's any more. I'm also very careful about the use of lens caps.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: bandhphoto@aol.com (BandHPhoto)
[1] Re: Makeshift lens caps for Nikkors with hoods
Date: Sun Jan 10 1999

I was wondering if anyone had figured out what type of caps might fit some other Nikon lens hoods.

Tupperware lids fit all mine, except the old 20/4, which uses a tennis ball cover.

regards,
Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
henryp@bhphotovideo.com

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@cl-sys.com
[1] Re: UV Filters - quality important?
Date: Fri Jan 15 1999

Could a crappy filter degrade image quality to a noticeable degree,

Probably not. The only requirement for a filter is that it be flat. In this modern era I suspect all the UV filters are flat enough that they won't impair the optical system. This wasn't always true but I haven't run across a UV filter that caused image degradation in about 15 years.

Would a crappy filter possibly increase flare?

It's possible but not likely. In my experience, if I see flare in a photograph taken with a modern filter I will also see flare without the filter. The filter is a pretty small addition to an optical system that could have upwards of 15 elements and as many places where elements meet. If flare is really a concern then you can avoid it much better by staying away from zoom lenses and other designs with many elements than you can by worrying about what kind of filter you are using. Ever wonder why some of the lenses that have earned legendary status for sharpness are the way they are? Fewer elements. The Zeiss Tessar, a four element design and the Nikkor 105 f2.5 with five elements are just a couple of many similar lenses that produce crisp, contrasty images. The major reason for this is simplicity. Lenses today are more complex-partly because of the love affair with zoom lenses and partly because of the desire to produce faster lesnes. These lenses take a toll in more flare (less contrast) as a result. In a nutshell, worrying about the brand, coating or cost of a UV filter is a pretty small concern compared to worrying about lens design-if you are picky about optical quality, of course. In other words, a UV filter isn't going to make much optical difference.

Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: spam-abuse@worldnet.att.net (Tom)
[1] Re: UV Filters - quality important?
Date: Tue Jan 19 1999

"Fred Whitlock" afc@cl-sys.com wrote:

>>Could a crappy filter degrade image quality to a noticeable degree,
>
>Probably not.  The only requirement for a filter is that it be flat.  In
>this modern era I suspect all the UV filters are flat enough that they won't
>impair the optical system.  This wasn't always true but I haven't run across
>a UV filter that caused image degradation in about 15 years.
>
>>Would a crappy filter possibly increase flare?
>
>It's possible but not likely.   In my experience, if I see flare in a
>photograph taken with a modern filter I will also see flare without the
>filter.   The filter is a pretty small addition to an optical system that
>could have upwards of 15 elements and as many places where elements meet.
>If flare is really a concern then you can avoid it much better by staying
>away from zoom lenses and other designs with many elements than you can by
>worrying about what kind of filter you are using.  Ever wonder why some of
>the lenses that have earned legendary status for sharpness are the way they
>are?  Fewer elements.   The Zeiss Tessar, a four element design and the
>Nikkor 105 f2.5 with five elements are just a couple of many similar lenses
>that produce crisp, contrasty images.   The major reason for this is
>simplicity.   Lenses today are more complex-partly because of the love
>affair with zoom lenses and partly because of the desire to produce faster
>lesnes.  These lenses take a toll in more flare (less contrast) as a result.
>In a nutshell, worrying about the brand, coating or cost of a UV filter  is a
>pretty small concern compared to worrying about lens design-if you are picky
>about optical quality, of course.  In other words, a UV filter isn't going
>to make much optical difference.
>
>Fred
>Maplewood Photography
>http://www.maplewoodphoto.com

>>
>>Thx, Doug

If you want to see an example of how a lower quality filter will clearly increse flair (actually ghost images, not veiling flare), take a Nikkor 24-120 at 24 mm, stick it on a tripod, and point it in the general direction of a bright, small source of light, say 2-3 feet away, in a room illuminated only by that bulb. (One of the little 40 watt unfrosted, candle shaped incandescent bulbs often used in overhead decorative lighting fixtures has a relatively small filament, and is what I used).

Carefully observe the pattern of ghost images or snap a shot for the record. Screw on a cheap Tiffen UV filter (single coated or uncoated) and observe the huge increase in ghost images (number and intensity). Replace the Tiffen with a multicoated B&H;, and you are almost back to the ghost situation without any filter at all.

Now, this test is somewhat artifical in that it relys on the specific but coincidental matching of the reflections from the flat filter with the radii of curvature of some lens element in the 24-120 at this particular FL, and at this subject distance for the express purpose of showing that no filter is best, a good multicoated is next best, and an uncoated or single coated filter is worst.

In fact, I hve also done a fairly extensive set of test shots outdoors with this lens shooting complex, real scenes close to, or actually into the sun, and see little difference difference in flare between no filter and either of the above two filters.

Based on these results, my philosophy has been to generally keep a filter on the lens to protect it and minimize the number of times I have to clean the front element, but remove the filter in any high contrast, backlight, etc. situations.

I also did the same tests with the following other NIkkor lenses: 20 f/2.8, 85/ 1.4 and the (new) Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 as well as a couple of off-brand lenses. All yielded essentially the same results - noticible flair or ghosting effects in relatively artificial testing situations which became essentailly unnoticable in normal contrast shots.

I hope my comments gives some perspective on just how significant (or insignificant) the reflections from these filters really are.

Tom
Washington, DC

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: jjfla@aol.com (JJFLA)
[1] Re: Nikon and the tupperware body caps...
Date: Mon Jan 25 1999

Actually the real tupperware caps do have a useful purpose with some Nikon lens hoods. They fit perfectly over the metal lens hoods for the 24mm, 28mm and 35-70af 3.5 lenses. I use the all the time instead of lens caps. Try it and you may find they also fit others. Jerry

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: colyn.goodson@airmail.net (Colyn)
[1] Re: Comparing cameras - today vs. yesteryear
Date: Sun Jan 31 1999

Bernard 5521.g23@g23.relcom.ru wrote:

>Well, it must have been that 1936 Leica lens you use... I thought you
>bought it new. But here's a question I was wanting to ask you: why do
>you use it? Does it give you some special effect you find worthwhile, or
>do you get a kick out of using ancient stuff?
>
>Bernard

No, I have to give credit to my Granddad for buying that lens new... Sometimes I am looking for a certain effect.. For example, I may want the type of flare only this lens can give.. Newer lens tend to have a different kind of flare... But I also enjoy using the older lens and cameras..

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999
From: Jeff Spirer jeffs@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [Rollei] What's with Hoya?

Print it wrote:

> Hoods don't cost $100.
>paul

I guess you haven't priced Rollei 6000 series hoods lately. At B&H;, they run from $129 to $220. And that doesn't include the bellows hood.

Jeff Spirer

From: "Ed Kelly" sleuth@hooked.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Makeshift lens caps for Nikkors with hoods
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999

 >It'd be interesting to see what other ways people have come up with to
 >deal with this in the various Nikon lens hoods.

A tupper ware lid appropriated from the kitchen just fits perfectly over the built in lens shade of my 400 f3.5. Just be careful you don't push it down into contact with the front element.

From: jjfla@aol.com (JJFLA)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Makeshift lens caps for Nikkors with hoods
Date: 7 Jan 1999

I have found that Tupperware caps fit almost all of the hoods for 52mm element lenses---ie 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8. , 35-70 mm3.5 af, etc. For my Tamron 24-70 I use a coffee can plastic lid on the hood. Have fun trying.

Jerry

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999
From: Kristen Marie Robins kristen@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Vignetting with Nikon 24/2.8D

David W. Peters wrote:

> I recently purchased a Cokin P filter holder and a Singh-Ray ND
> graduated filter.  If I use it in combination with a screw-in
> filter will I have a problem with vignetting on a Nikon 24/2.8
> lens?  I am thinking of using the graduated filter with a
> screw-in Nikon red filter.  I am afraid the overall length may
> lead to vignetting though.

One way to lessen the problem is to stop-down your aperature, which is good anyway--the old "f/8 and be there". But let's assume you want to avoid any vignetting...

On ultrawide angle lenses, you should avoid using more than one slim screw-in filter or Cokin-P. For instance, on a 20mm lens, the field of view is around 90 degrees--that's 45 degrees in either direction from the lens's center line (when measured along the diagonal of the lens, I believe). Since the lens is usually designed to not vignette at its maximum aperature when used without filters, it's sometimes possible to add a small filter occasionally at the front without impacting its view.

I use a Cokin-P on my Nikon 20-35 f/2.8D, but the Cokin-P was modified to relieve vignetting. It only allows a single filter on it; the front two filter slots were cut off and filed down. Further filing was necessary at the centers of each side holder to round them out, so the holder looks something like this:

         |  /        \  |
         | /          \ |
         | |          | |
         | |          | |
         | \          / |
         |  \        /  |

I got that idea from Thom Hogan; you can take a look at look at his short treatise on the 20-35mm at the following URL:

http://www.bythom.com/2035lens.htm

There are a few ways to check vignetting. 1) Using film, point the camera at a uniform field (such as the sky) at your widest aperature and take a picture, develop the film and check the result. 2) Using the viewfinder, look through it and pay attention to the corners for darkening, again against a uniform field, while rotating the Cokin-P holder--this works well with the F5 since it has close to a 100% viewfinder. 3) Using the lens alone, take the lens off the camera, set it at its widest aperature, and peer through the back of the lens while rotating the Cokin-P holder.

Hope that helps!

- --Kristen

From: "Ron Frank" ronald.frank@mci.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Lens Hoods
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999

R. Scott Sherman wrote

>Are there much difference on lens hoods for lenses?  I see of range from
>$10. to $50.  Thanks for any responses.

The lens hoods on my Zeiss MF lenses run over $80. Is the quality good? Yes of course it's awesome, and they really take some abuse. Would I pay $80 if I had a good alternative.....HELL NO!

Basically if the hood does a reasonable job of coverage, and does not cause vignetting, it's good. The hard plastice hoods privide some protection as well, but I generally don't abuse my lenses much. That said, on my G2 45mm (my knock around everyday camera) the lens hood may have saved the lens since I (Doooohhhh!) dropped the darn thing one day when I was in a hurry to change lenses, and did not get it on correctly.

Ron

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999
From: Mitchell P. Warner indepth@kuentos.guam.net
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Horseman SW 612 & also 47mmXL

Don,

Good chance the stacked filters ARE causing the problem. You can check by pointing the camera at bright sky or a well lit wall and look thru from each of the corners to the opposite corner. make sure the lens is perfectly centered. Look with lens open and stopped down. If there is a vignette you should be able to see it. Then put the polarizer on and look. then the center filter (alone) and look, then the combo. Also. I'm no techi' on this but: The polarizer will not have an even effect over the whole width of the lenses horizontal angle of view. You can see this easily on a 35mm with a standard lens and polaizer. Look 90 degrees from the sun and rotate the polarizer for maximum effect. Then, while looking, turn slowly thorugh 90 degrees, either way. The change in the polarizers effect on sky, clouds, water will be obvious. Your 47mm Apo-Grandagon has a horizontal view of 110 degrees. The difference of the angle between the center point of the lens, when at maximum polarization, and the edge of the lens horizontal view is so great (55 degrees) that the amount of polarization is changed, possibly resulting in the light fall-off you see. Shooting at small f-stops will NOT lessen the polarizer fall-off effect. It is the result of the angle of the sun relative to the plane of polarization. I have the same problem with a 72mmXL on a 5x7 format. I cannot use the polarizer without fall-off. Using just the center filter gives a much better image. I suggest using a graduated ND filter such as Lee or Cokin, to darken your sky. Get the P size filter from Cokin, or the 4x4 from Lee, they work well.

mpw

From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens coating question.
Date: 3 Jun 1999

From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens coating question.
Date: 3 Jun 1999

from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 6-2-99

Being in a multi-coated lens world you will be surprised at how good some old uncoated lenses are without having them coated.

I have had uncoated lenses coated and they were a little better.

The secret with uncoated old lenses is to have someone open the mounts and clean the optics and then shoot using a deep lens shade. With a good lens the quality can be tops.

From: rmonagha@news.smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens coating question.
Date: 6 Jun 1999

RE: Uncoated lenses for UV Photography:

it would depend on the vintage; certainly worth trying if you have them; obviously the SMC "super multi-coated" ones won't do so ;-0)

at least some of the 50mm f/1.4 takumars must have been uncoated, as Herbert Keppler in The Asahi Way computed flare estimates for the uncoated early variants as well as the singly coated and multicoated ones. see table at my lens flare pages at

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/flare.html

similar vintage early nikkors are uncoated (e.g., my 135 f/4 bellows lens) a lot of early third party lenses are uncoated, and made a big deal out of being coated or multicoated in the early 1960s...

conversely, some of the last production run takumars were upgraded to SMC multicoating without being so labeled - when they tested the lenses, they couldn't figure out how come the singly coated lenses did so well compared to the multi-coated ones, using Pentax ones as both singly coated and multi-coated were available. They discovered from Pentax that some non-SMC lenses got the SMC coated lens elements but weren't labeled as such. So a check of lens serial numbers might also be in order, as this shows not all SMC lenses will say SMC on them...

another issue is lens adhesives; some lenses makers (Leica) use lens adhesives specifically designed to filter out UV from B&W; film etc., so if you get one of these puppies, you might as well have a UV17a filter on! So an older uncoated lens, esp one recemented with certain modern adhesives, might also be a bad candidate due to this factor...

in short, try and see. Most uncoated lenses are pretty cheap in common focal lengths when you find them. The lack of a coating should be visible

fyi: from my recoatings faq: http://medfmt.8k.com/bronrecoatings.html

Multi-coating Lens Colors

From Shutterbug Lens Flare Definitions and Solutions by Don Garbera, p. 38, March 1989

The color of multicoating on your lenses indicates the complimentary color of light the lens' multicoating is designed to control; purple, red and blue reflections mean that the coatings are controlling green, blue and yellow light...

regards bobm
--

From: Anders Svensson Anders.-.Eivor.Svensson@swipnet.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tokina RMC
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999

Yessss... (the circle is now closed)

RMC means Rainbow Multi Coating. It is (simply) Tokinas designation of multicoating (as opposed to the simpler single coatings). I have a 35-105 Tokina RMC that I have bought used. When it was new, it was seen as a budget "fast zoom".

Build quality is excellent, optically, it is so-so, IMHO.

Anders

HLim371292 skrev:

 > What does RMC stand for in a Tokina lens
and is this line of lenses any good? 

[Ed. note: the idea of a $300 lens hood somehow amuses me - it is more than most of my Nikon OEM lenses cost - and still needs a homebrew modification to cut down flare! But Jim's tip below could be very handy for those with similar problems..]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999
From: jchow jchow@isl.melco.co.jp
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Schneider 40/3.5 lens hood

> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 
> From: "A. H. Ongun" ahongun@ecsysinc.com
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] 40mm/3.5 SA Schneider PQ for the 6000
>
> You need lens hood Rollei part number 60472.  I had bought mine from Samy's
> www.samys.com.  B&H does not have it in stock, but they still might. 
> Andy
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rebank@aol.com
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 1999 6:09 PM
> Subject: [Rollei] 40mm/3.5 SA Schneider PQ for the 6000
>
> > Hi, all.
> > I just bought this lens used and would like to find a shade for it.  Any
> > suggestions?
> > Thanks in advance
> > Edward

I use the lens hood made for the 40/3.5 SA (in the Rollei catalog). If you get this hood (expensive, like $300 despite being almost all plastic), you should buy a sheet of self-adhesive black felt and cut it out to line the inside of the hood. The reason is that if the sun is coming from the front/low angle, it can reflect off the flat corner faces of the inside of the hood and flare off the filter (if you're using one). I took a sheet of notebook paper and a pen, traced out the inside panels of the hood, cut them out, and used them as a template to cut the felt and stuck the felt in the hood. Took about 20 min for the materials. Since then, I've had no flare problems (I usually leave a 77mm heliopan UV on the lens for protection...it's flare prone (shows up at the edges of the image). I got the felt from the House of Fabrics for $1...hard to beat this price. :-)

--Jim

[Ed. note: another handy tip - thanks James!]
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999
From: "James MacDonald" jlmac@worldnet.att.net
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Lens Cap for Hood?

Does anyone know what fits over the HS-9 for a 50f1.4?

Measure the outside diameter of your hood, then go see or telephone your friendly local Tupperware lady. There ought to be someone listed in your yellow pages or "business" section of the white pages. Search on the web, too.... might be more convenient. The Tupperware sales people have a catalog listing the specs of all the caps in their line. (*Not* in the catalogs they distribute to the unwashed like you and I.) It's been my experience that attendance at a 'Tupperware Party' is not a prerequisite to buying their goods! (grins)

Be forewarned that: (1) Tupperware stuff is expensive; (2) They want to sell you a complete set of four or six caps, not the one or two that you need; (3) There are some hoods for which no suitable Tupperware cap exists. If nothing works, try Henry's suggestion of lids for Pringles and tennisballs, pet food cans, etc.

Jim
jlmac@worldnet.att.net

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999
From: "Goette, Alf" Goette.Alf@pmintl.ch
Subject: [NIKON] Lens Cap for Hood

One "non-Nikon" cap for hoods that was mentioned some time ago on the list, is the Pringels crips plastic lid, which fits perfectly on the hood for the 85/1.8 AF-D. Sorry to say, that I forgot the name of the hood.

Happy shooting

- -Alf

From Nikon Digest
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999
From: Ron Goodman rgoodman@albany.net
Subject: [NIKON] Lens Cap for Hood

The Nikon 77mm cap fits the 85mm f/1.8. The 72mm cap fits the HN-2 and HN-3 hoods. The 77mm cap also fits the built-in hood on the 180mm f/2.8 AF.

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: UV filter

> Lenes like the 80 2.8 have a recessed well protected front element.

My 80 CF has the recessed front element. I was recently noticing that if there was sunlight to my side and I had a UV filter, it might hit the filter and cause flare, even if the "real" lens was recessed enough to avoid getting the direct sun hit. My point is that with he design of the filter, putting it on the front with no hood would make the lens more likely to flare.

Myself, I use a bellows hood for my outdoor work, and tend to use a UV filter. I ran some tests where I shot a group with and without a multicoated UV filter, and could not notice any degradation at 30x. Anyone use a hood for reception shots?

Peter

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: UV filter

At 12:49 AM 09/18/1999 -0700, you wrote:

>Anyone use a hood for reception shots?

Every shot ALL the time. E V E R Y !

regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[Ed.note: should a kilobuck+ Rollei lens have a flare prone front?]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens flare, schneider vs. zeiss

----------

>From: "George Day" geod@cwo.com
>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Rollei] Lens flare, schneider vs. zeiss
>Date: Fri, Oct 1, 1999, 11:37 PM
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I'm still in the decision-making phase, between a Zeiss 150 and Schneider
> 150.  Unfortunately, I can't shoot side-by-side comparisons, so I'm just
> asking for a little more input.
>
> While I've generally heard that the Schneider has an edge in sharpness over
> the Zeiss, I haven't seen its MTF charts.  The floating element for closer
> focusing is, of course, nice.  However, a friend of mine switched from the
> Schneider to Zeiss because he felt that the Schneider was too prone to  flare
> in back-lit situations.   He shoots lots of fitness projects for muscle
> mags, and his work is often done against the sky, a bright, white  background
> or windows (and he prefers the RZ over Rollei for just this reason: better
> flare control).

I had the Schneider 150 on extended loan several years ago. This was in the Exakta 66 version, but I would expect the optics and baffling to be identical in the Rollei version. It had a very definite edge over the Zeiss design when used close to its close focus limit. The floating element really helps in that sort of use. I did not notice any particular propensity of the lens to flare.

One thing that always bugged me on Rollei lenses is having a brightly chrome plated filter ring up front. In certain situations these can cause flare. But with a compendium shade this should not be a problem.

Bob

From: Ron Ginsberg ginsb001@minn.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens hood question- rubber vs metal?
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999

The rubber hood I purchased was designated wide angle and at 28 mm on a 72 mm screw-in does not intrude in the image. I use instead of the lens hood supplied with the lens because of frequent polarizar use. The rectangular hood made it difficult to rotate the polarizar front element. This rubber round hood rotates with the front element.

Another use might be to use the rubber ring to act as a tool when removing a stubborn screw-in filter as you would use a jar opener.You do not press tightly so the filter ring distorts in the mount, but the rubber gives a little more friction allowing lighter pressure to be used.

....

From: wftlradio@aol.com (WFTL Radio)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens hood question- rubber vs metal?
Date: 20 Oct 1999

I've generally preferred the metal screw-in types that are clearly more lens specific than the rubber types. This said, i often times "fudge" my shade selection...

By way of example, using a 100% viewfinder of a Nikon F2, i came to realize that I could use a more efficient (longer, basically) 28mm shade on my 24mm optic -- when using the slim-line Nikon filters (or B & W equivalent). The original Nikon shade for the 24 seemed so superfulous in design, it's better described as mere lens protection...

And by the way, for those who wish to try "maxing out" their shades as I do, stop down to the smallest f-stop, naturally. And for those without a 100% viewfinder field, just roll the very end (1/8") of your index finger around the corners of the shade to see if it intrudes into the frame... or merely find a camera in your line that has 100% viewing accuracy... (Canon F1 for Canon ... Nikon F* series professional cameras for Nikon).

Joseph.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Schneider 90/4.0 filters

As a general comment, any filter that sits out on the front of a lens can cause flare if light strikes it from the right (wrong) angle. When using filters it is always a good idea to use a lens hood, preferably a compendium type which can be closely matched to the angle of view of the lens.

Bob

....

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 99
From: "Lassiter, Paul" lassitpl@pubstaff.commerce.state.nc.us
Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Additions to the Line

One of Hasselblad's latest innovations has been the introduction of the Cfi line of lenses which Hasselblad claims significantly reduces flare-see http://www.hasselblad.com/press/detail.cgi?new/920654927.txt.

If flare was such a problem, why did it take Hasselblad/Zeiss so long to come up with a new design to combat this problem?

Date: 4 Jan 2000
From: Keith Clark kclark@spiritone.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Getting Rid of Flare/Photoshop Fixes

Ask in the Photoshop group...

Anyway, the key is CHANNELS.

Open the channels palette and select the r/g/b channels, one at a time. Chance are the flare is most prominent in one channel (in my experience the red channel has the mist flare).

You'll notice the channel information is basically grayscale, and that's the key to fixing the flare.

All you have to do is to use either the dodge or burn tools to make the tonal values of the flare approximate the values of the surrounding areas.

It's best to view the composite RGB information while working on the affected channel. To do this all you do is select the channel, then click the "eye" icon at the top of the palette (adjacent to the RGB indicator).

This is purposely vague, because you have the manuals, so we need to go into a lot of detail here. The key is practice. If you don't already have one, a pressure sensitive tablet is extremely helpful and may prevent carpal tunnel injuries if you do a lot of retouching work. The Wacom Graphire tablet for $99. It's a great beginner's tablet and will give you a LOT more control than pushing around a brick will (uh, I mean, a mouse ;>).

Cheers,
Keith

Charles Pezeshki wrote:

> Hey All,
>
> Well, I've been out shooting on the top of a mountain for the last week--
> fog completely covers the valley below, and I was shooting sunsets.  I did
> manage to get a couple of good shots.
>
> But flare haunted me constantly.  I was shooting 4x5, Velvia and Astia, with
> two late-model, multi-coated lenses-- a Nikon M 200mm f8 and a Fuji C 300mm
> f 8.5.  A couple of images I managed to stop down enough to avoid it.  But
> it remains a problem.  Any generic flare tips for shooting directly into the
> sun would be helpful.  What is the minimum f-stop to eliminate flare?  Can
> one generalize with these newer lenses?
>
> Well, there's something else.  My probable best shot was NOT shot into the
> sun, but it was shot without a hood.  Unfortunately, there is a ghostly
> pentagon of flare that does NOT take out all the detail (it's not a burned 
> small hole as some flare is) but a mask taking up about a quarter of the
> picture.  As I said, all the detail is there underneath, but you can also
> tell the increase in luminosity that has happened in this quarter.  It's not
> overwhelming, but if I can't get rid of it, I won't be able to blow this
> baby up to 16"x20" and have a fine art print.
>
> I just got Adobe Photoshop 5.5.  What can I do in Photoshop that would help
> me with this problem?  Is there some type of mask I can apply to take down
> the luminosity values or some such?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know...
>
> Chuck

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000
From: "Christophe Heyman" christophe.heyman@attglobal.net
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Gigantic lens hoods

Alexander wrote:

>It appears to me that Nikon's hoods are getting larger and larger

Not only that, they're also hugely expensive: if you break the hood of your 600mm f/4 AF-S, Nikon will smile at you and offer a new one at a suggested MSRP of over 900$. A hood for the 300 f2/8 AF-S will set you back over 400$ (MSRP). Of course I don't know street prices, but when I went through the price list of Nikon's Complete Line Catalogue, I couldn't believe my eyes. Christophe.

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000
From: psydgm@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Cheap lens covers

Friends:

I really like the idea of finding other (CHEAPER) products to substutute for more expensive stuff, provided that the cheaper item really does substitute. The subject of lens covers is an excellent example. Toward that end, here is my contribution. In the pet food department at my local supermarket, they sell plastic cat food caps at about $2+ a pack with 3 caps per pack. These caps fit my HN-26 lens hood just fine. This is the hood for the 62mm circ polarizer. There are two parts to the hood (for shorter vs longer lenses), and the caps fit both parts equally well. The caps seem generic and do not mention a brand name. They are all pastel colors.

I'm still looking for a good cap to fit my 77mm circ polarizer. It takes an 85mm threaded cap, or about 89-90mm slipped over the outside. Any suggestions? Dave McDonald

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000
From: Frank and Marianne Berghuis fmbergh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Re: Cheap lens covers

Not sure about the 77mm polarizer, but my wife has taken it as a challenge to find cheap caps for all my hoods now: 8oz Kraft Stove Top Chicken stuffing for your HB-7 (loose fit), and 16oz Betty Crocker frosting for your HB-4 (tight fit - comes with the very attractive "Betty Crocker spoon" logo) ;-) Good shooting.

Frank

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Cheap lens covers

you wrote:

>Not sure about the 77mm polarizer, but my wife has taken it as a challenge
>to find cheap caps for all my hoods now:

Tupperware tumbler lids.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000
From: "Blair Ellis" Blair.Ellis@WesternCarolinaCenter.org
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Re: Cheap lens covers

I use a small round lid, made by Tupperware, that fits the HN-1 lens hood, on my AFD 24/2.8, perfectly. The lid has a number 297-39 on it and any Tupperware dealer should be able to get one for you. I had a dealer give me one even after I offered to pay for it. This has been an interesting thread proving that the inhabitants of the NML are an inventive lot, giving new meaning to the saying, "necessity is the mother of invention."

Blair

From Bronica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: "Koeman, Kosta" kosta.koeman@intel.com
Subject: RE: [BRONICA] Bronica S2A lens flare recommendations?

Sam,

Thanks for the reply.

I should have clarified. I am shooting into the sun. The other day, I was out on the Oregon coast (Cannon Beach) to catch a sunset. Instead of using my 75 mm lens (reads on the lens ring: Nikkor-P 1:2.8 f=75 mm), I used my 3.5 50 mm lens with a Vivitar 2X multiplier.

An owner of a local camera shop taught me a trick about testing for degree of lens flare: point a pen light into the camera, move it around and see how much flare you can generate. When doing this: I had very noticeable flare with the 75 mm, but hardly any with the 50 mm (even with the multiplier).

I will keep my eye out for "HC" models.

Thanks again,
Kosta

.....

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000
From: Paolo Zuccoli zuccoli.p@netvalley.it
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: sputnik stereo

Lens shade for "fed Stereo" are PERFECT for Sputnik camera. Paolo

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999
From: PeteScherm@aol.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Polaroid Back and Lens Cap for 50mm f/4 C

Klaus,

I may be able to help you on the lens cap for the 50mm C lens. I lost mine in Ireland this past September, and didn't realize at the time how much I really used the lens cap. Of course, I used it for protection, but I also used it as a filter storer/remover. The 67mm filters are slightly larger diameter than the lens barrel, and I had shaved the inside of my lens cap to fit over the filter. I found myself using it to remove a filter with it still in place. And I got to wishing that I had a few more caps, because it was also convenient to leave the filter firmly clutched in the grasp of the cap, for future re-attachment. Then I lost it. Several dozen rolls of film later, I realized that I needed many lens caps ...... for all of the filters I use.

I found that a plastic screw cap for the regular-size Mason jars (mayonnaise, non-wide-mouth) was nearly perfect for the job. I modified a bunch of them by shaving the interior thread with a sharp utility knife until it was just the perfect press-fit for the filters, then I made the "lens cap" thinner by removing a quarter inch or so from the bottom. Cleaned them up with some sandpaper and now I have a collection of filters embedded in lenscaps in my filter wallet. And only one side can get dirty in the wallet and it's a snap to clean them this way. Try it! You'll like it!

Pete Schermerhorn, in the glorious Berkshire hills of western Massachusetts

Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000
From: nimages@capecod.net (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stepping up to Med. Format

"Garry B." ebelins1@san.rr.com wrote:

>One quick follow up...
>
>Have any of you had experience with the cheaper Rolleicord models. Does the
>schneider lens measure up to the qaulity produced by the more popular zeiss
>and Mamiya optics?
>
>Thank you so much for all of the info thus far. It has truely shed an
>abundance of light on this issue. Keep it up you guys!
>
>Thanks again,
>Garry B.

Gary,

I don't know if you got the message I was suggesting in another reply but in the end non of the TLRs have the coatings of modern SLR lenses, in fact non of the older rangefinders or SLRs do either,so you need to do something about this to keep contrast levels up. Just about any of the name brand cameras will perform quite well , however you really need to consider shading the lens as a routine. In so doing you will do well with most of the selections mentioned, the lesser Rolleicord will perform quite well at some point through the f stops, probably f8 on down or something.

People mention softness ( myself included ) in the more open apertures with some model TLR cameras or lenses, but this is not always a bad thing, it's something that can be counted on for effects in certain images as you get to know the camera, if not you don't go there. You can also count on almost all the brand names shooting quite sharp in the more stopped down settings , sharp enough to not tell by bare eyeball what kind of camera took the shot when viewing a print.If the light gets low , slow the shutter and put the camera on a tripod, use faster film , you will find faster film selctions to perform wonderfully by the way, in medium format, in fact I rarely use slow film other than slides. The results are grainless and detail loaded and capable of nice enlargements, compared to 35mm. shots.

That stated and this is just about pure personal preference and based off picture quality rather than build, if I had a choice between the Rolleicord and an Autocord, my personal choice would be the Autocord in all honesty. IMO the latter performs very close to Rolleiflex standards, the Rolleicord perhaps a slightly lesser performer that costs more money. The real differences are minimal .

In any event use the shade, you won't regret it. I think if you have decided on a fixed tlr and that seems to be where you are headed in your query, the time may well have come to not worry about brand or model specifics , stay away from the toys and the el-cheapo plastic things, buy something claimed to be in nice shape and go shoot it. A year from now you can come back and tell the next guy querying about getting into medium format by means of tlr, how well it performs and at what settings. Don't forget to tell him about shading the lens in outdoor shots !

David Grabowski

From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999
From: DKTEAT@aol.com
To: bronica@ilist.net
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] What to use as lenshoods

Roland,

This may seem a little unprofessional and pretty basic, but I use a hat as a lens shade. In the past I have found that if I get a shade long enough to "guarantee" I am not going to get any light on the face of the lens regardless of how I point it, it is so big it is hard to handle or runs the risk of causing viginetting. Since I don't use a lens hood part of my set up before tripping the shutter is to see how much light is falling on the lens. If there is any, I take off my had and shade it. I have used this trick for years with 35mm shooting and it assures that when I am out shooting I have something covering my sparsely populated head so it doesn't burn........

As far as body caps, they are scarce. I looked a year before I stumbled into one. I considered using it as an "adapter" but I am not real sure I want a lens hanging off a plactic cover, seems like there is too much of a chance for it coming loose or breaking off a tab due to the weight..

I am toying with the idea of making an adapter to screw into the 57X1mm thread in the body to try some non-Bronica lenses on the body. I am not sure what is going to be involved in this yet but if the threading is successful I may make up a few. If you interested let me know, I am not sure what the cost would be yet, depends on the cost of material and time...

Enjoy the camera, they are great!

Don
Dkteat@aol.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
From: Vincent Chan v7chan@acs.ryerson.ca
Subject: Re: [Rollei] lense cap for a rolleicord

Hi Fiona,

I use the grey tops off of a kodak 35mm film canister for my Rolleiflex Autocord. Dosen't work for my other Rollei's though, but give it a try. Works well, and I don't worry about losing them.

Vincent.

> Hi
>  does anyone here know if it is still possible to find a lense cap for a 1936
> Rolleicord?

Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How do you test a lens for flare?

kirkfry@msn.com wrote:

>I have several classic 8 1/4 lenses that I want to test for flare: One
>Tessar (1913 Zeiss uncoated, two Dagor's, one coated and one not and a
>semi modern plasmat (single coated).  Unfortunately I don't have access
>to one of those super-XL-multi-coated, $1,000 lenses.   It has to be an
>"on film" test.  I would like it to be a reproducible test.  Hopefully
>someone can suggest something a little more specific than "shoot into
>the sun and see what happens."  It is my theory that the major
>difference between old lenses and new ones is that the new ones have
>substantially less flare.  Most quality lenses made in this century can
>resolve at the diffraction limits by the time you get to f22 - f32, the
>f-stops most commonly used for large format work due to the DOF
>problems of large format.  Thanks for any help.  Kirk

Flare is not so easy to measure. The usual method is to measure the light scattered into the dark areas of the aerial image from a bright spot in the image area. This takes something like a spot photometer to do. You could probably makesshift a suitable photometer from an exposure meter with a small pick-up area like a Luna Pro, that would work for probably a 4x5 or larger camera.

Measurement from negatives is also possible but the film curve must be accurately determined in the toe area so that a "zero-flare" condition can be established.

Lens flare is caused by reflection from untreated glass-air surfaces. It can also originate from the surfaces of the mounting if they are not correctly designed to elinimate reflections. This last is easy to spot using a flashlight, or other concentrated source, to look for reflections from the cell or shutter surfaces.

In practice flare can also come from extra image light scattered around in the camera. Measuring flare with film in a camera does not distinguish between lens flare and camera flare, useful for trying to correct for it but not for measuring lenses.

The use of a lens shade on any lens can reduce flare from extra-image areas but will not eliminate flare from the reflection and scattering of light from the image itself.

Up to six glass-air surfaces the addition of anti-reflection coating does not make a huge difference in contrast, as more surfaces are added the effect of coating becomes very evident. At some point coating becomes vital as for zoom lenses with many glass air surfaces.

All coatings become less effective for light striking them at an angle so there will always be some flare from even the most perfect coating.

There is some information on measuring flare, both aerial image and on film, in:

_Photographic Materials and Processes_ First edition, Stroebel, Compton, Current, Zakia, (1986) Boston: The Focal Press, ISBN 0-240-51752-0

There is a newer edition of this in print but it covers somewhat less material and I am not sure the flare data is in it.

Another note: Many old lenses get hazy on the inside surfaces. The haze may be due to the evaporation of material from the internal paint, I'm not sure. In any case, its easy to remove, it comes off with ordinary lens cleaner. This haze is very visible when a strong light is shined through the lens and can destroy the contrast. Check your lenses, both coated and uncoated for this haze.

Another thing to check is the condition of the cement in cemented lenses. Most old lenses suffer from some edge separation where the Canada Balsam used has started to crystalize. If not great this probably has little or no effect of the lens performance. Some later lenses using synthetic cement can develop haze in the cement. Under strong light it has a slight "orange peel" look. I've seen this in both Kodak and Wollensak lenses. Canada Balsam can also get hazy. This haze can destroy both the contrast and sharpness of a lens. The only cure is to get the lens re-cemented.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999
From: tired.of.spam@nospam.com (Rudy Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How is lens flare controlled???

> > Hi everybody.
> >
> > This question is more technical in character. What else, if anything,
> makes
> > a lens less prone to flare besides its design (using less optical
> elements)?
> > Does coating helps?
> >
> > Any responses are welcomed. BTW, does anyone knows about good lens
> building
> > website (either theoretical or practical).
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Rich

Flare, specifically veiling (sp?) flare, results in an overall loss of contrast and can result from many different sources. Basically, it is putting down light on the film where it doesn't belong.

Some of the sources are: The number of glass-air interfaces in the lens. Nature and quality of the multicoating. The interior finish of the lens barrel. The presence (or absence) of any baffling inside the lens and in the camera box (the finish inside the camera, between the lens mount and the shutter). All of these can be sources of flare. Fortunately, a well fitted lens hood and care in composing the image can reduce or eliminate most flare. I also find the DOF preview button a great help in determining the presence of flare and ghosting flare in difficult lighting situations.

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999
From: yourname@your.com (_)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Rectangular lens shade ??

I want a rigid rectangular lens shade. To fit a lens a with 72mm filter. I see Bronica makes a GS-1 bellows shade for $450 but something simpler would suit my needs as I would use with only one (wide angle) lens. A screw on round shade simply does not offer enough coverage and most after market bellows shades seem to be square.

Any recommendatons?

Thanks

Andrew
Berkeley CA

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999
From: BobE besk@shtc.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rectangular lens shade ??

I use a Cokin square shade with my large format lenses. You can buy more than one and stack them as necessary.

For extra wide angle lenses I have considered reducing the depth of one of them.

This can be done cutting it shorter with a hacksaw and finishing the edges by "grinding" the hood on medium sand paper held on a flat surface.

Requires the lens adapter and Cokin filter holder.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999
From: bigler@jsbach.univ-fcomte.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35S - Folding Lens Hood

> From Colin Haywood : .... a folding rubber lens hood attached to a
>  screw-in metal ring ....

Here is my a suggestion. In the old times, most filters and rubber lens hoods were attached by a clip-type system instead of the threaded mount. In those good old days, lenses had a small diameter and many had a diameter close to R 35. (either T or S). So you could easily find those rubber hoods in a flea market or so. On a Rollei 35S, the thread is 30.5 mm, a standard still in use for filters attached at the back of fish-eye or ultra wide-angle lenses. Also the Pentax auto 110 had the same 30.5 mm thread in front.

So I would suggest to separate the problem of attachment from the problem of the hood, i.e. trying to find a clip-type rubber lens hood in a flea market and clip it on your R35 UV filter. A refinement would be to find a spare UV filter in 30.5 mm and permanently glue on it a clip-on rubber hood. For this I would suggest to try first a reversible glue not too strong that could be dissolved in aceton. Of course an expoxy glue will be more reliable but not reversible.

You may by lucky enough to find an original Rollei 35 rubber hood, may be from somebody on this list.

Hope this helps,

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@lpmo.univ-fcomte.fr

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Lenshoods

Stuart,

You might try www.lslindahl.com as they make some excellent shades with a wide variety of gels, vignettes, softeners, etc. The early Hasselblad Pro Shade goes for $100 or so on Ebay, and they work pretty well, in my experience.

Peter

"Stuart Phillips" stuart.phillips@umb.edu

Mr Posner,

I use a Blad 501C with 80mm and the standard hood. I'd like to add a compendium type hood so I can use gel filters. I don't particularly want to buy the Hasselblad Proshade. What other options are available, affordable and popular?

Thanks

Stuart Phillips

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999
From: NYCFoto@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Schneider 90/4.0 filters

To the Rollei 600x users:

Does any one know if the use of filters on the Schneider 90/4.0 macro will cause flare or any other problem (the glass is deep into the lens barrel) ? Do I need a lens shade for the filter ?

I own a 90 APO, great lens, but if you're at the wrong angle you'll get flare on your filters, you really do need to use a shade, the only problem is that it's going to be really hard to find a 95mm shade that fits the lens without vignetting.

Rollei has a great camera system and a great lens system, but they have done very little to provide a really good compendium shade for the schneider, 95mm filter thread lenses.

Lee makes one that fits but you need to cut corners in the adapter. The Sinar filter shade works, but you can only use 1 of the shade rings, and I think the Hi-tech fliter shade has the same problem. You may want to look into shades used for pro video or movie cameras. I have pleaded with Rollei for a few years about making a shade similar to hasselblad's but to no avail.

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] when you change lens...

- ----------

>From: muchan muchan@promikra.si
>To: contax@photo.cis.to
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] when you change lens...
>Date: Thu, May 4, 2000

> Well, for you Bob, I'd like to think out another name of prize than
> the Gonzalez price...
>
> Just curious, without caps, oops, with caps on the sofa, don't you think
> lenses are not enough protected, maybe from our finger oil, or rather from
> each other to be scratched? -- in my case, I divide the bag into three
> chambers, and in one long chamber, smaller lenses sit together...

I use camera bags with padded dividers to keep the lenses away from each other. I leave the lens hoods on, and put the lenses in the bag bottom down. When I pull a lens out I take a quick look for dust on the front and if I see any blow it off before putting the lens on the camera. With Contax lenses I may have a rear cap on the lens for extra protection, not for the glass, but for the mechanical diaphragm linkage. With my Canon lenses I don't worry about the rear.

> Leave the caps sounds easy, but am I not going to have scratch on my
> lenses sooner than sooner or later?

The lens hoods provide sufficient protection of the front in most cases. I do keep a lens cap on the front of my 20 because the front element is big and close to the front, and more easily touched by accident.

BTW, lenses are tougher than most people think. When I had a camera shop one of the manufacturer's reps who came to see me used to very dramatically put out a lighted cigarette on the front of one of his company's lenses, and then clean it off and show the astonished customers that it was undamaged.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000
From: Jon Hart jonhart51@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens Bashing of a different type

--- Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com wrote:

> Remove the parts to be painted.  Use automotive
> paint and
> bake it with a heat gun.

You might want to try some flock paint for the interior of your lens hoods. Works way better than regular flat paint which still carries a sheen and can reflect sunlight into the lens albeit a very small amount. I have access to several types of industrial paints used in covering steel and other metals with or without galvanizing. I am currently still in testing mode on several of them. One recommendation I can make is to forget the powder coat idea. Although durable enough, it is difficult to apply and bake on on such small pieces and is not as resistant to rubbing as other paints. It has a tendency to chip rather than "give" under compression as most other paints do. Also, the process ensures a heavy coat that may intefere with fitting parts with tight tolerances. Lastly, I have never seen a truly flat powder coat. It comes out more as a matte finish which in most cases is close enough for hand grenades.

Jon
from Deepinaharta, Georgia

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000
From: Jim Brick jimbrick@photoaccess.com
Subject: [Leica] RE: metal vs plastic/rubber

Dan Cardish wrote:

>What precisely is the problem with the rubber collapsable hood that came
>with the tele-elmarit-M?  It's lightweight, seems to shade the lens
>properly, and gives without being damaged when bumped into something.  Why
>must EVERYTHING associated with a camera be made out of metal?
>
>Dan C.

Right!!!

I love the plastic/rubber lens shade/cap on my 24 & 35 ASPH lenses. I also like the plastic lens shades on all of my Hasselblad lenses. They don't chip or scratch and they don't mark-up lenses and bodies when they happen to bump or rub against them.

Jim

[Ed. note: Mr. Bob Shell is the editor of Shutterbug, noted pro photographer, noted photo author and former repairperson..]
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Allow me to introduce myself...)

Spacing has nothing to do with flare. Neither does "lens element groupings" per se. Only the number of air/glass interfaces has any effect on flare. That's why lens designers went to great efforts to keep the number of air/glass interfaces to an absolute minimum prior to multicoating technology. This is one reason that you see cemented doublets and triplets so often in older designs. Prior to multicoating the only way to control flare was by cementing elements together and keeping the number of elements down. Thus the famous Tessar and Planar designs from Zeiss.

Bob

- ----------

>From: Zeisser1@aol.com
>To: contax@photo.cis.to
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Allow me to introduce myself...)
>Date: Wed, May 31, 2000, 10:30 PM
>
>A specifically designed hood would, of course, not vignette.
>It could be that longer focal lengths lenses are more susceptible to flare
>because of the spacing and lens element groupings but I admit to not
>knowing if this is the answer, or if it's something else. While I've seen
>tele lenses with built-in lens hoods, I've never seen such a feature on a
>wide focal length lens. I'm still puzzled...

From Kiev-88 Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From: root eml@patriot.net
Subject: Re: Digest Number 163

> Message: 2
>    Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
>    From: mark hahn markhahn2000@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: New Kiev88
>
> Do you shoot with the UV filter?  Just curious.
>
> >...IMHO the flare issue is vastly
> > overestimated...

Mark,

I seldom shoot color. When I do, I use a skylight 1A or nothing. If there is no overcast, I usually do not use the 1A. When shooting slides (very rare) I use the 1A all the time with my favorite, Kodachrome25.

I have a lot of single-coated lenses, and rarely if ever do I see flare. FAR, FAR more important than any filter is a decent lenshood, and using a bit of discretion when shooting into the sun. Flare, in the form of images of the diphragm, is the greatest problem. It's far better to use the maximum shutter speed and leave the lens more open.

I once said in a college photo class (after the instructor gave the usual spiel for multicoated lenses, etc.) that there was nothing better at times than a bit of flare for opening up deep shadows and reducing the excessive contrast that everyone always seemed to be fighting while printing. It didn't go over well, but under some conditions, like interiors in available light, it can actually be advantageous to use an uncoated lens or a single coated one, like a 50 year old Tessar to open up the deepest shadows so something is recorded on otherwise blank areas of the negative.

Regards,
Ed Lukacs
Washington, DC

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000
From: Trawick Robert SSgt 30CS/SCSVHS
Robert.Trawick@vandenberg.af.mil
Subject: RE: Material for 400/3.5 shade

In the past, I've used TuperWare products for lens hoods.

Use an old UV filter without the glass. Cut a hole the exact size of outer diameter of UV Filter ring. Warm the ring up on the stove and then place in the cut out. Let cool. Use a hot glue gun on it next. Then use light sand paper to score the surface on the inside and then paint flat black.

It might not look ugly, but it will work great...!

Hope it helps

Dixie

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: UV filter and 21mm ASPH lens - do they fit together?

Vick Ko wrote:

>Does anyone out there shoot with a Leitz UV filter on the 21mm ASPH lens?

Good grief no!

>I'm from the school of "scratched or dirty filter is cheaper than
>scratched or dirty front element".
>
>TIA
>Vick

Doesn't anybody understand the simple part of the optical physics of light/glass/lens design?

I mean the obvious, hit you in the face, pretty hard to ignore, potential problems with the use of ANY filter.

And you are thinking of sticking one on your lens and leaving it there?

Filters are great when used in appropriate conditions and appropriate places AND when they can ENHANCE the photograph.

But go right ahead. Makes no difference to me if you want your beautiful 21 ASPH to always peer through a windshield.

Ever drive down the road and get glare on your windshield from bright lights or the sun?

Since there isn't a filter in existence that has the very expensive and rigorously calculated flare suppressing coating that your raw lens has. What do you suppose happens when you point your camera toward bright lights, high contrast, or the sun skips past the shade and catches part of the always present "filter" ???

FLARE!

But hey... you do what you want. I really could care less. So why am I writing this? Well, it's in my genes. Or is it jeans? Who knows. The words just come out without me doing anything.

Anyway... happy UV filtering. May you keep your back to the sun.

Jim

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
Subject: Re: ProShade

I've got an older ProShade that works just fine for me. I carry it in a plastic food storage container I bought at the Container Store. I take two bags, one for cameras/lenses and the second for flash/tripod. The flash/tripod bag is a black tennis bag, and the flashes and the shade have their own containers which ride in the duffel bag.

The only comment I would have is that even if you get the late model folding ProShade, you may find it at least as bulky as the fixed shades. Certainly it is more difficult to deploy and can be deployed incorrectly (wrong focal length setting.) For that matter, if you have multiple fixed shades, they can be put on the wrong lens, too. The ProShade does work about the best when you have the patience to deploy it. In my case, I find I use it on wedding jobs with patient clients that are good planners.

Peter

> How effective is the ProShade ? Does it make a visible difference ?

I use the very old style ProShade and for me it makes a huge difference.

Not to mention the ProLook you'll get with it:-)

And the current one accepts 100mm square filters ...

Good luck,

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: InfinityDT@aol.com
Subject: Re: ProShade

....

I have both types of shades. I find the Pro-Shade a bulky pain in the backside. It's much easier for me to keep the individual shades on my lenses (as long as your bag compartments are long enough it's no problem) than to switch the Pro-Shade back and forth. The Pro-Shade also acts like a miniature wind-tunnel outdoors.

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: ProShade

Carsten Bockermann wrote:

> I'm currently using two lenses (80/2.8 CF and 180/4 CFi) with my 503CX and
> of course I'm carrying the lens shades for both. As I plan to buy a 50/4
> CFi soon, I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to replace the lens
> shades I have with the ProShade 6093T, which probably uses less space in my
> bag than three normal shades would.
>
> How effective is the ProShade ? Does it make a visible difference ?

I use the 6093 (without the T) mainly as a holder for 100 mm filters. I find it easier to carry and use the normal shades when i don't need these filters (get the filters you will need the most in the 'regular', glass form). The ProShade, even when folded, has a shape that is not easy accomodated in my bags that are set up to take bodies, lenses, backs, lightmeters, etc. It is too wide, so it ends up lying on top of the rest. I find using the ProShade slows down working a little bit (once it is on, you're ok, but you will have to switch and reset it everytime you switch lenses). No big deal though. I think the Proshade will be more effective as the regular shades when using long(er) focal lengths, but i haven't really compared results. (By the way, i have yet to use the extra baffle you are supposed to use with the 250 mm lens. It should make the shade even more effective.)

My only gripe with the 6093 (without the T) is the fact that whatever setting/extension you wish to use, the bellows seems to have a mind of its own, i.e. it slides ever so slowly to return to the position it was last stored in. Very annoying! I have to use elastic rubber bands to stop it from doing this. Is the 6093T better in this respect?

From: Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Shade for Hasselblad

Lee Filters makes one which is OK. It takes gels and has a removable adapter so that the entire shade assembly can be mounted on many different lens and camera brands... Calumet peddles them (or used to anyway).

Marco Iaconelli wrote:

> Anyone that can recommend a good professional shade for Hasselblad
> instead for the Proshade?

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Cap for hood or step-up ring

When I have lens hoods on lenses I usually don't use caps. One less thing to hassle with. If you really must have caps for the end of lens hoods, you can usually find them in the form of food container lids. In the US you will find a variety of sizes in K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and grocery stores. Just take your lens hood(s) with you and test fit until you find something that works.

Bob

- ----------

>From: "CyberPOP" s_cyberpop@hotmail.com
>To: contax@photo.cis.to
>Subject: [CONTAX] Cap for hood or step-up ring
>Date: Tue, May 2, 2000, 10:07 AM
>
> I guess many people here use Contax Metal Hood (whatever number is).  Did
> you leave the hood or step-up ring on the front?
> I'd like to leave either step-up ring or hood on my lens, but I can't find
> the 86mm cap.  I check with B&H for any brands (sorry here), but they don't.
> Adorama doesn't have it too.
> Or you just take the hood and step-up ring off?

From: "John Stafford" John@Stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
Subject: Cheap Tip (was Re: Shade for Hasselblad)

Marco Iaconelli marco.iaconelli@swipnet.se> wrote

> Anyone that can recommend a good professional shade for Hasselblad
> instead for the Proshade?

You should have the answers you need for a Pro shade by now, so let me add a small tip for _regular_ hoods. I use Series-VIII hoods made by Kodak along with the bay-to-series adapter by Hasselblad. These are large, aluminum shades of good quality which let you use the excellent Hasselblad (or other) series filters. For the 50mm and 80mm lenses, I cut the shade short (will measure it if anyone is interested) and for the 150mm Sonar, I use a stock model. (If you use screw-in Series VIII filters, then you do have to trim 5mm off the shade for the 150mm). Cost? $6 each, and they work perfectly well and even look good.

(I find this a handy solution because with a Series VII to VIII adapter, it also works on my old 5x4 Printex with normal and wide lenses.)

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000
From: Eric Goldstein egoldstein@usa.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Salute to a Shade

Stanley E Yoder wrote:

> (snip) Have decided to let the
> shade remain as is, as both tribute and reminder - that shades are
> important for more than one reason.

Stan-

Have had the same experience several times as well... lens hood saved the day when a camera was struck or fell (also had a focusing magnifier once save my A-1 from a tripod fall!)... people talk about the use of filters as protection but honestly have gotten much more on this front from hoods and instead of image degradation (which all filters contribute to to varying degrees) you can derive only benefit from a hoods use...

Eric Goldstein

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] flare, stray light and shadow detail

I'm not sure that Erwin is right about this. If no light at all is reaching the shadow areas, then the fog exposure would simply contribute to a gray with no detail, as he says. However in most real world situations some light carrying subject detail will be reaching the shadow areas. Then the flare adds to this light to contribute to the shadow exposure and bring it up from base plus fog to slightly higher exposure with some detail.

At least that's what the old timers always have taught and why some of them prefer old lenses with higher flare levels.

Bob

[Ed. note: Low cost ultrawide hoods?...]
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000
From: sssnaps@aol.com
Subject: Re: lens hoods for 17mm

sturk@telerama.com writes:

>Or maybe I should just get a small pie plate, cut a larger enough hole
>in the center to slip the lens barrel through, and spray paint it flat
>black....   :-)

^^^

Stu, I notice you included a smiley here. This implies you were joking....

....However, I have used exactly that method before for ultrawides , only using a spun aluminium disc (=aluminum, for anyone who calls a torch a flashlight :-)

many a true word is spoken in jest etc...

regards,
Gord (no not that one, I'm 400 miles North of him)

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] Coatings and stuff

When evaluating lenses and/or discussing optical properties or develoments, some background knowledge is most certainly necessary. Otherwise it might be the case that attention is drawn to the wrong aspects or even characteristics are mentioned as discriminative in a negative or positive way do not have the relevance or importance attributed to it. The Rokkor topic does bring home this observation with some force. The study of lens drawings is a case in point. Without knowledge of optical design, without knowing the optical specs of a particular lens, the comparison of two diagrams is very dangerous and most certainly will lead to misleading conclusions. Two identical diagrams can deliver significantly different performance and two digarmas that look different, might give comparable performance. The assumption that the diagram reflects optical quality is erroneous.

If an optical designer is presented with whatever lens diagram and you would ask him/her to make any statement about performance or even assess differences, he/she would politely note that this is impossible without having access to much more important info. The noted difference of the third lens element between the Rokkor-CLE and the Summicron/Rokkor-C is obvious, assuming that the drawings are faithful. A Double Gauss lens is however, remarkably insensitive to small changes in glass thickness and without having any idea of the true radius of the glass and its type and the tracing of the rays, any conclusion, however tentatively, about design changes pointing to possible improvements, is a shot in the dark and because not based on analysis, inherently misleading. The only statement that can be corroborated is this: on the assumption that the diagramas are faithful, we note a difference in thickness of the third element, the purpose of which is unknown, without additional info.

Coating is a second topic that is easily mis-interpretated. Single coating is an obvious technique, as is multiple layer coating: in the first case a lens surface is coated with one layer of a certain and in the second technique, several layers are deposited, from two to nine and even more per surface. ML-coating is not in itself better than SL-coating, it depends on the design, on the glass types used and more. As example, when using high refractive glass, a SL-coating is more efficient than a ML-coating. If the Summicron were SL-coated, but used high RI glass, the effect might bettetr than a Minolta lens with ML and low refractive glass. ML-coating is often also used as a means to correct the colour transmission of a lens, again depending on the glass used. Leitz used three layer coating on selected surfaces of some lenses already in 1957, but did not mention it specifically, as they gave this aspect no public relation relevance. So if Leitz notes of a lens that it has coating, the inference that this has to imply SL-coating is incorrect and even if a certain lens does have single coating, that is not a sure sign of inferior performance.

The idea that MC-coating is more effective in flare reduction and repression of secondary images as SL-coating, is not true either as a general statement. And the claim of a Lugger that the Summicron-C must be a SL-coated lens, as his Summicron-C does have a significantly higher flare level than the Rokkor-CLE, is quite rash. Read what Mr Crawley, of BJP fame noted about the Summicron-C: "the lens is flare-free at full aperture". If the Summicron-C, as claimed, is of SL-coating type and as claimed, the SL-type is of inherently higher flare level, such a remark were hard to accept.

The type of coating is a lens characteristic that merits attention, but only in the context of the rest of the design parameters and without this knowledge, the singling out of coating properties as distinctive elements of the relative performance of a lens, is more reminiscent to a marketing act than enlighenment and advice for the user.

Erwin

[Ed. note: some interesting tidbits relating to coatings technologies...]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000
From: "Henning J. Wulff" henningw@archiphoto.com
Subject: Re: Vs: [Leica] M-Rokkor story

Raimo Korhonen wrote:

>Do you believe in all legends? Multicoating was definitely jointly
>productionised by Zeiss and Pentax and an unknown American company called
>Optical Coating Laboratory Inc. - after some years Leitz obtained a
>licence. The idea itself is about 100 years old.
>All the best!
>Raimo
>photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen

As Erwin wrote, Leica started coating some lenses with up to 3 layers in 1957. One of the first lenses to have this 'multi' layer coating was the 35/1.4 Summilux. In the Pentax PR way of thinking, this was not 'multi-coating' and especially not 'Super Multi-Coating'. Various companies, definitely including the American company mentioned and Zeiss were working on multi-layer coatings, but just as definitely Leica had multi-layer coatings in production before Pentax did.

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com    

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000
From: "Henning J. Wulff" henningw@archiphoto.com
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: [Leica] M-multicoating, was: Rokkor story

Raimo Korhonen wrote:

>I do not doubt it - but my Summilux 35 from 1976 does not have
>multicoating - so what was multicoated in 1957?
>The Pentax multicoating has 7 layers and Fuji EBC has 11 layers so there
>is a difference. And I "believe" that Optical Coating Laboratory Inc. was
>needed to make multicoating commercially viable and they had some
>important patents.
>All the best!
>Raimo

Have you had it tested? If you do, I think you would discover that some coatings are multi-layer. All 35 Summiluxes have had this.

At what point do you consider multi-layer coating to be "multi-coating"? Pentax seemed to feel that for PR purposes, their 7 layers qualified. As Erwin has stated quite correctly, multi-coating is something that has to be done in conjunction with the lens design, and is not something that necessarily provides the same benefits with all glasses and designs. Whether a lens has 7, 11, 3 or whatever layers should be determined by the overall design, not PR pressures.

When Nikon started using multi-layer coatings around 1970, they tried to stress that some lens surfaces benefited from multi-layer coatings, some did not, and named their system Nikon Integrated Coatings (NIC) to point this fact out. That design concept has not changed with most of the manufacturers, including Zeiss and Leica.

Optical Coating Laboratory, which I believe was a division of Raytheon, did have some patents on some coating technologies which Pentax and various other manufacturers used, but you have to understand that coating technology, and the transition to multi-layer coatings was not a one-time step, but a developmental process. As such changes in techniques and new insights lead to continual improvements on a regular basis, even now, and saying that Optical Coating Laboratory has some patents means something, but certainly not everything. There was definitely research and material advances in this area in the 50's already. The principles of multi-coating were known a long time ago.

I did some work in optics in the 60's, and also worked for a while at Siemens in a physics lab where, among other things, I studied vacuum deposition production techniques. Multi-layer coatings were part of this, and it was no secret.

Leitz's 1950's multi-layer coating techniques may not have been as sophisticated as the systems that Pentax and Optical Coating Laboratory had later, but that does not mean they did not exist.

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com     

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] Back to the origin

Now that the discussion about the coating topic has reached the usual level of rhetorical questions and proof by incidentental examples, it is time to refocus. My objection was and still is that it makes no sense, and in fact is incorrect, to compare two different lenses and promoting one of both in a more favourable light to refer to the coating technique as a single positive criterion. Disregarding for the moment what type of coating is applied to the Summicron-C, which is not relevant for the discussion, my simple point is this: multi-coating in itself does not guarantee a high level of image quality.

All modern lenses are MC, but not all of them deliver topclass imagery. And SC-lenses can deliver outstanding quality, if the basic design is OK and if the topic of secondary reflections and flare is incorporated into the optical and mechanical parameters. Or to expand a bit: if the mechanical tolerances are not very tight, any theoretical advances that MC might have, may be lost again. If the Summicron-C has SC, I still will object to using this characteristic as a negative sales point and find doing so incoreect from a user standpoint.

In my view, the only correct way to compare the performance of two lenses, is testing them side by side. If then one of both is superior, you may reflect on why this is so. According to my field and benchtests, the Summicron-C is slightly better than the Summicron 2/35 ( 8 and 6 element versions) and just below the Summicron 2/50 from 1969, which by some is considered the best 2/50 ever. The Summicron-C in my view is an excellent lens, which holds its position with the Leica M lenses of that generation (1965 to 1975).

Erwin

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
From: "Barrett, Russell" Russell.Barrett@METROKC.GOV
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Busy day

A konica 35 mm film cannister cap works great.

-----Original Message-----
From: calciua@hn.va.nec.com [mailto:calciua@hn.va.nec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Busy day

As busy as my day has been so far, I found 5 minutes to grab a camera before going out of the house today - a Rollei 35 SE, black. Unfortunately I lost the lens cap for it (stupid Rollei design for a fall-off cap) and was thinking of replacing it, but I do not want any more Rollei caps (I lost too many of them). Is there one of those quick-on/off type cap available? Who might be selling it?

Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000
From: jjfla@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lens hood for Vivitar 19mm 3.8

Ed --I have this lens and as another member said, you can use the HK 14. That's what I use, and do not get any vignetting. By the way, a large coffee can cover fits as a great and very cheap lens "cap" over the hood.

Jerry

Date: 13 Sep 2000
From: foto28@aol.com (Foto28)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Lens hood for Linhof 617?

Hi, can anyone recommend an appropriate lens hood for Linhof 617 S III with 90mm XL lens? I can't seem to find a reference in any Linhof or Schneider literature for this.

Thanks!

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
From: Bob Salomon robertsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens hood for Linhof 617?

There isn't one. Even using a step up to 105mm you will vignette with a 105mm wide angle hood.

The proper technique is to gobo the lens.

--

www.hpmarketingcorp.com for links to our suppliers

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000, Tetenal Ink Jet Papers

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
From: "Sherman Dunnam" sdunnam@ync.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens shade

"Tom Raymondson" rayson@pacific.net wrote

> I am currently building a Bender 4x5 as my first LF camera, I have a
> used 210mm to attach to it, and yes I know that LF is not cheap - but
> what are my cheap alternatives for a lens shade?  Thanks.

Tom, One easy one is to stand where you block the sun. I often hold my hand or a piece of cardboard in position to shade the lens. Another alternative is to use your dark cloth, draping it over a wire frame made of a coathanger.

However recently at a flea market I found an old folding polariod camera in non-working condition for $3. I pulled the bellows off and taped it to a Cokin filter holder. It works for my 210 and 150 but isn't large enough for my 90mm.

A Cokin filter holder itself works OK in some situations.

-----
Sherman Dunnam
www.flyfishingjournal.com

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 31-Oct-2000
From: Michael Darnton mdarnton@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: lens hood compatibility

The ultimate test is to pop the camera back, open the shutter, and look for the edge of the hood through the lens (open the shutter first, obviously) from through the corner of the film aperture. Look with and without the hood, at wide open and with the lens shut down all the way. If you can see the hood at all, at any opening, you've got a problem. Most hoods proper to a particular lens are calculated so that there's room to spare and you won't see anything different with or without.

--Michael Darnton

From Rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
From: Stephen Gandy Stephen@CameraQuest.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Bessa Interior Flare ?

I'm not sure, but it sounds like to me you are describing the rear of lens, the mount, cam, etc: once the lens is mounted on the camera.

while this might indeed contribute flare, it is also true of practically any other interchangeable lens camera.

Interestingly the 1930's Kine Exaktas has their mirror boxed flocked in an attempt to cut down the film chamber flare, in the age of uncoated lenses. The idea was not repeated again in 35, so far as I know, until the Fujica SLRs of the 1970's.

Modern Photography ran a test, confirming the mirror box flocking decreased apparent lens flare, which was actually film chamber flare.

Stephen

Uwe Flammer wrote:

But to see the main disadvantage of this camera

> design, you have to mount a lens on the empty (no film inside) body, cock the
> shutter, set it to "B", open the backplane, and release the shutter. Have a
> look through the open shutter and see a lot of shiny metal! Bessa users, did
> you ever wonder about flare, especially when using the 75 mm lens? I am sure
> that this is not a problem of lens coating, but a problem of shiny metal
> surfaces in front of the film during exposure.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: jess4203@aol.com (Jess4203)
Date: Tue Nov 21 2000
[1] Re: single vs. multicoated lenses?

Perhaps it should also be mentioned that the difference between uncoated vs single coated vs multicoated depends some on the lens design. More air-glass surfaces mean more lowering of contrast with uncoated or single coated lenses vs multicoated. Protars and some modern six element lenses= four surfaces. Tessars=six. Dialytes=eight. Dagors (I think)=eight. Most lenses are baffled and have their edges painted well, but this, too, could be a source of flare.

HTH,
Roy

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Filter Fray and Hoods, Harrison

Harrison is speaking the TRUE truth. Read it and follow it if you want unadulterated images with or without a filter. Still, if there is a bright light source or high contrast with any bright reflective area in the photograph, no filter and a lens hood will prove to be the best solution.

Just know where you are pointing your camera and take appropriate action.

Great post Harrison,

Jim

Harrison McClary wrote:

>Kirk,
>
>You are quite right here.  One thing I have noticed over my years as a
>photographer are the astounding numbers of photographers WHO DO NOT USE
>LENS HOODS.  This is an act that degrades the image far more than using a
>filter will...I have seen I can not recall how many who stick a big old
>filter on the front of their lens then not use the hood.  I ask why and
>they all have said "The hood is too big, the lens does not fit in my bag
>with it on."
>
>I just look at them and think, "Ok I have the same lens as you and mine
>works fine in my bag...yes the top flap sticks up some but hell at least
>all that flare from no hood is GONE since I am using the hood."  I do not
>say this...shoot let them have a lot of flare.....in most instances they
>are my competitor anyway.  This just insures my photos will look better.  :)
>
>Folks if you use a filter, be damn sure you have a great hood on the
>lens.  The better the hood the better your photos will be.  Also if you
>must filter get one that does something for your images that you like.
> Personally on my Leica glass I use no filters.  On my Canon glass I use
>81a filters.  I like warming up the canon glass with the slightly warm filter.
>
>If you do not use a filter, still use a hood.  You will be amazed at how
>such a simple contraption will improve your photos in certain light.
>
>--
>Harrison McClary
>harrison@mcclary.net
>http://www.mcclary.net
>
>On 9:17 PM kirk tuck ktuckphoto@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Additionally, as regards flare, SLR shooters have the benefit of seeing
>>actual flare and (if so encumbered) removing an offending filter.

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: Mark Langer mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca
Subject: Re: Filter Fray and Hoods

Right on, Harrison! In many cases, a hood will offer more physical protection (crush space) than a filter, and does so much to cut down flare. I tend to avoid filters, but am not dogmatic about it. I use a filter on lenses that are notorious for soft front elements (my 50mm Summar, for example) but often do so at the cost of making them more prone to flare. Generally, if I'm worried about protection, I use a lens cap (more often when the lens is not actually engaged in the moment of picture-taking). But I am dogmatic about the use of a hood, which makes a greater difference in terms of the final product than anything else.

Mark

[Ed. note: lens mount and body flare can be a major problem (cf Kiev Med Fmt cameras..)]
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000
From: Uweflammer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Bessa Interior Flare ?

Uhr schreibt rflist@topica.com:

>while this might indeed contribute flare, it is also true of practically
>any other
>interchangeable lens camera.

Look into the film chamber of a Nikon SLR with lens mounted, then compare to a Bessa. You will see the difference! Consina forgot to blacken the backside of the body's front plate, and they did not blacken the backside of the lens thread ring. This does not matter as long as you have a wide angle lens mounted, because the rear lens (and the black rear lens holder) is rather close in front of the film and shadows the shiny metal surfaces. But it does matter if you are using the 50 or 75 mm lenses. Unfortunately, i never have looked into any Leica M film chamber. Would be interesting.

I already thought about to blacken the shiny surfaces by using any matt black laquer, but i am afraid to loose any warranty in this case. Hope that Cosina and Ringfoto Germany consider to improve customer relationship, so that it would be possible to discuss such questions with the importer directly.

Best regards
Uwe

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 17-Nov-2000
From: Michael Darnton mdarnton@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Lens Shades

Here's just a for instance--I've done this several times. First find a shade that fits, either directly or via a step-up ring. Any brand, any focal length longer than what you need. I used a 200/4 Pentax hood on a 85/2 Russian lens, and a 62mm 300mm hood on my 85/1.5 Canon. Put the hood on, and open the shutter and the camera back. Look through the lens from the back, and see if the corners get a full circle of light at wide open and fully shut down. If they do, the hood is OK.

If not, try to guess how much to saw off, and do so. Check again. When you've cut off enough that the hood doesn't get in the way, sandpaper the cut end flat and run a black magic marker around it. Factory hoods are usually shorter than is effective so you can hang a couple of filters under them and still not vignette, but if you know what you want you can make a longer, more effective hood. As it turned out, the 300mm hood, from a cheap 70s vintage preset 6.8 lens, was fine for the 85/1/5 without modification. The Pentax 200mm hood neede about 8mm cut off.

Most hoods are aluminum, which saws with woodworking saws (a coping saw, for instance). You can even plane aluminum with a wood plane! So this is definitely something you can do at home.

--Michael Darnton

Daniel Hein wrote:

>
> Chuck Skinner wrote:
> > (such as when
> > shooting into the sun without a good lens shade)
>
> So how does one find this good lens shade?  Say I have an 85mm lens
> needing
> a shade...how do I know how deep a shade to use, and knowing that, how
> do I
> find same?  I have seen them by thread size, but where is a site that
> lists
> them by focal length (and ideally f/stop) and thread size?  I presume
> that
> when the manufacturer provides a lens shade it is properly configured
> for
> that lens, but usually the shades are not included on used equipment.
>
> Dan

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] filters on Leica lenses, part 1

Emanuel Lowi wrote:

>Given the number of Leica users who've griped here about their difficulties
>in using
>various M rangefinders with their eyeglasses on, I fail to understand all of
>this
>atavistic hostility towards filter use on inanimate lenses. Is the brain more
>deserving of semi-transparent obstruction than film?
>
>Emanuel Lowi

This is not even remotely close to the issues involved. Stop and think about what you said.

A human looking through eyeglasses can SEE when the light source they are looking toward is producing flare in their glasses. You CANNOT SEE when a filter is causing flare when photographing with an M camera. R camera yes, M camera no. The image on the film will exhibit lower contrast, perhaps washed out, perhaps double image ghosting, and numerous other flare and bright light source high contrast afflictions, but you will never see it until AFTER you process the film.

This is why Leica says "don't use any filters when photographing a high contrast scene or into a light source." "These situations cause micro flare, macro flare, image ghosting, etc," all via the filter.

All of the surfaces of your lens, especially the Noctilux, are coated to kill these unwanted side effects. The Noctilux spends most of its life looking at high contrast such as night scenes, inside rooms with lights on and deep shadows. Leica has spent millions of R&D; money perfecting lens coatings to transmit as much light as possible without unwanted flare properties. It takes machines costing millions to put the various coatings on the different surfaces of your lenses.

And then you want to nullify one of the reasons your lens cost so much, by putting a flat piece of glass (even good Schott glass) with coatings much inferior to Leicas, which WILL cause the flare problems that the Leica lens coatings are designed to prohibit. But with the filter there, it is too late. The light is already damaged before it reaches the lens. The poor Noctilux is looking through filter flare, just like your eye looking through eyeglasses flare. Take the glasses off and the flare goes away. Take the filter off and the flare goes away.

This is why Leica says:

"Don't use any filters when photographing a high contrast scene or into a light source." "These situations cause micro flare, macro flare, and image ghosting."

So those of you that run around and photograph anything and everything with UV filters on your lenses, are participating in a crap shoot. Point your camera toward a bright light (like the sun, or bright street light at night, or bright reflective white shirt, etc...) will have images with reduced contrast (or worse) due to some level of flare. A naked lens will ALWAYS produce a better image.

Part 2 tomorrow.

Jim (I didn't start this!) Brick

From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
From: "Kelvin" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Re: Re: What is happening with the GS-1?

Think it was Del's camera which said they could get a wide-angle hood on special order for US$56 in size 95. Not sure if it's metal or rubber though. I can look for the e-mail if anyone is interested.

Alternatively, if the order is big enough, we may be able to get Hans Roskam in the Netherlands to machine a few. Would still be about US$50+ though.

I too found an offer for US$99 with 72 adaptor, and now I can't find it again!

BTW, if any GS1 users are interested... I will soon have for sale an AE prism, PG100/3.5 and spare speedgrip G ;)

...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Was Newbie/Now Mirror Box Flare

you wrote:

The "old hat technique" would not work here because the problem is not lens flare but mirror box flare. All lenses project a circle of light backwards to the film, most of which forms the rectangular image on the film. However, something like a third of the light lies outside the 35mm frame and hits the four walls of the mirror box. This should be absorbed by the matt black paint and ridging on these walls. However, in the SL35E, the light was being reflected off the mirror box walls onto the film creating a white haze at the bottom of the picture.

I used an old Ambico Shade Plus to chop this light off before it entered the lens. It was the only one I could find to fit the 67mm size of the f1,4 35 Distagon and 85 Planar and, being a "cheap" shade, it wasn't too complicated to use.

I have just had a careful look at the mirror box of the SL35E and noticed that the black paint on the back of the SL35E mirror (which forms the top of the mirror box when the picture is being taken) is much more glossy than elsewhere.

I guess this must be the source of the problem and just goes to show how a lick of paint can undo the performance of a o700 f1,4 35mm Distagon!

I cannot understand why camera firms don't make simple rectangular light shades to prevent this problem. Admittedly, it would only work on lenses that didn't rotate on focussing. Rollei only made such a shade for the 25mm Distagon, for some strange reason.

David Morris

>I have had much success with preventing flare on troublesome optics by
>simply using a hat or coat to shield it.  If you hold it in the right
>position the optic will be in the shade, though this only works when using
>a tripod because you'll need two hands.  A lot easier to manage than one of
>those god awful compendium type bellows lens shade things, but again it's
>only convenient in the one-off type shot, not for continuous shooting.
>
>Shaun
>South Korea
>>To my mind, the SL35E has a real problem here.   Has anyone else
>>experienced this?  I've not had the problem with twin lens cameras and I
>>guess this is because the square format fits much more closely into the
>>circle of light created by the lens.  I also wonder whether the use of
>>bellows in folding cameras gives them a natural advantage because the
>>internal zig zagging of the bellows must be ideal to remove this type of
>>extraneous light.
>>
>>David Morris

David Morris (pbccon@gn.apc.org@gn.apc.org)

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: jjs john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Another tip - Hasselblad lens shade substitutes

Robert Monaghan's posts reminded me of this.

Hasselblad 50/60 lens shades are priced on the moon. If you are not a collector, then an excellent substitute is a good old 67mm lens shade (aka Series VIII) cut to the proper length. The most common shade is the Kodak Series VIII available for a few bucks (I pay $6 each for them) at any place that has old stuff.

You do need a Hasselblad (but not necessarily Hassey Brand Name) bay-to- series adapter, but that is not a big expense. Then you can use the hoods and Series VIII and 67mm filters.

To cut the shade I use a simple Dremel tool with cutting wheel mounted in their mini-drill press. Place the shade on the platform with the threaded end flat on the platform. Set the height of the Dremel to the proper depth and lock it. Then cut the shade by rotating it carefully against the wheel. Carefully! Let the wheel do the work. If you press too hard, the Dremel's shaft will tilt, ruining the symetry of the cut. Be safe, wear eye-protection.

I've made such hoods from Kodak hoods for the 50mm, 80mm and 150 Hasselblad lenses, and using the same technique I modified a Vivitar 67mm shade for the 38mm. (Ever priced a lens shade for the 38?) The Vivitar shade has the proper taper to make it a super wide-angle shade.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Was Newbie/Now Mirror Box Flare

you wrote:

>The "old hat technique" would not work here because the problem is not lens
>flare but mirror box flare.  All  lenses project a circle of light
>backwards to the film, most of which forms the rectangular image on the
>film.  However, something like a third of the light lies outside the 35mm
>frame and hits the four walls of the mirror box.  This should be absorbed
>by the matt black paint and ridging on these walls.  However, in the SL35E,
>the light was being reflected off the mirror box walls onto the film
>creating a white haze at the bottom of the picture.
>
>I used an old Ambico Shade Plus to chop this light off before it entered
>the lens.  It was the only one I could find to fit the 67mm size of the
>f1,4 35 Distagon and 85 Planar and, being a "cheap" shade, it wasn't too
>complicated to use.
>
>I have just had a careful look at the mirror box of the SL35E and noticed
>that the black paint on the back of the SL35E mirror (which forms the top
>of the mirror box when the picture is being taken) is much more glossy than
>elsewhere.
>
>I guess this must be the source of the problem and just goes to show how a
>lick of paint can undo the performance of a o700 f1,4 35mm Distagon!
>
>I cannot understand why camera firms don't make simple rectangular light
>shades to prevent this problem.  Admittedly, it would only work on lenses
>that didn't rotate on focussing.   Rollei only made such a shade for the
>25mm Distagon, for some strange reason.
>David Morris

Snipping here . . .

I wonder if painting the inside of the camera with very flat paint would help. The best is "Ultra-Flat Black" made by Krylon. Its available only in a spray can be some can be sprayed into a small container and brushed on. I've used it frequently to touch up shiney parts in view cameras.

There is a also a paste-on material with a sort of velvet finish for absorbing light. I think this is available from Small Parts Co., and similar distributors. I can't remember what it is called.

The internal baffling of later TLR Rolleis is very effective in controlling flare but most camera makers seem oblivious to the problem. Even the most effectively coated lens will produce flare if the camera itself is reflective inside. A good lens shade will help by vignetting the circle of illumination down to that which is usable for the image, but most lens shades are too wide in angle to be really effective this way. In any case, controlling reflection in the camera itself is very desirable.

In a view camera it is sometimes useful to put a lens shade on the _back_ of the lens as well as the front.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Was Newbie/Now Mirror Box Flare

> From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
> Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Was Newbie/Now  Mirror Box Flare
>
> I wonder if painting the inside of the camera with very flat paint would
> help. The best is "Ultra-Flat Black" made by Krylon. Its available only in
> a spray can be some can be sprayed into a small container and brushed on.
> I've used it frequently to touch up shiney parts in view cameras.

I'm sort of surprised about this thread on reflectivity of the mirror box on the SL35E. Mine never showed any flare. Maybe, as with so many things done in Singapore, some were painted with the wrong paint. I'll look at mine the next time I'm down at my studio and see what it looks like.

> There is a also a paste-on material with a sort of velvet finish for
> absorbing light. I think this is available from Small Parts Co., and
> similar distributors. I can't remember what it is called.

The first camera company in 35mm to pay much attention to this was Fuji in their line of M42 mount SLR cameras in the 70s. They used this type of material on all sides of the mirror box to reduce flare. Surprisingly other camera makers continued to ignore the problem.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Bay 4 hood for Rolleiwide

> Does anybody know of a source for a Bay 4 hood for the Rolleiwide?

Check Heliopan, Germany.
http://www.heliopan.de

Download the catalog : Preisliste.pdf

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr

FRom Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000
From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Was Newbie/Now Contrast and Resolution/Now Mirror Box Flare

Happy Christmas!

There have been some interesting thoughts in this run and I agree with those who say there are no perfect lenses, only different ones. I have always liked the results from the B35 35mm Rollei which has a Triotar. It has a lovely soft sharpness, sometimes almost a glow, and works well with smooth toned chromogenic b/w films like Ilford XP2. I often use it in preference to the 35S with its famed super sharp HFT Sonnar.

I've had good sharpness (but never great) and lovely tonality from three and four element un-coated pre-war lenses on a variety of cameras. However, these old negatives always seem to look better as contact prints than enlarged prints. Somehow, enlargement seems to take some of the magic away, even when using older enlarging lenses. I wonder if there is a technical reason for this.

Concerning flare, I had considerable flare problems with my Rollei SL35E which was not reproduced on other cameras. The problem did not occur when the sun or other light source was actually in the picture, only when it was just outside the frame. On careful testing, I found that the problem occured when strong light lay within the circle focussed by the lens but outside the rectangular 35mm negative frame. However, it was not apparent in the viewfinder when taking the photo, only on the resultant print. This must be due to the fact that only half of the mirror box is in action when the mirror is down and the resultant reflection of extraneous light is different to when the mirror is up.

Theoretically, this light has a only maginal effect, bouncing around the light box and eventuly being absorbed by the matt black paint and light baffles. However, on the SL35E, "mirror box" flare was large enough to ruin many a photograph. Even a white sky could create flare.

The Rollei round light shades were useless to stop the problem. I eventuly solved it with a rectangular bellows light shade which had to be set exactly in the right position - a fraction out one way and it did not work, a fraction the other way and the shade was in the picture! Changing focus also meant adjusting the lens shade slightly. But what a difference the shade made! I realised I had only been getting around half the potential performance out of the Zeiss and Rollei lenses I had. I also found that mirror-box flare had been present in almost all the pictures I took.

As the bellows shade was only useful for slow work, I became disallusioned with the SL35E for normal use. I tried other bodies - the SL2000 was much better, as was the SL35, which I eventuly settled on. However, all suffered to some degree.

To my mind, the SL35E has a real problem here. Has anyone else experienced this? I've not had the problem with twin lens cameras and I guess this is because the square format fits much more closely into the circle of light created by the lens. I also wonder whether the use of bellows in folding cameras gives them a natural advantage because the internal zig zagging of the bellows must be ideal to remove this type of extraneous light.

David Morris

David Morris (pbccon@gn.apc.org@gn.apc.org)

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: "Paul van Walree" odobenus@xs4all.nl
[update: Paul van Walree info@vanWalree.com http://www.vanWalree.com/] Subject: Re: [CONTAX] What is light Fall off ?

Bob Shell wrote:

> Light fall off is a simple optical fact of life.  Areas away from the center
> of the lens get less light than the center because light passing through the
> diaphragm opening is less at more oblique angles.  It's easy to see why.
> Hold a lens up in front of you and look through it at a white wall or bright
> surface.  As you tilt the lens you will see that the diaphragm opening is
> a circle when you look straight along the optical axis, but becomes an oval
> as the lens is tilted.  This oval has the same long dimension as the
> diameter of the round opening you see on axis, but a smaller area so less
> light passes.  The more you tip the lens the narrower the oval gets, and
> the less light passes through.  Lens designers can control this only to a
> limited extent by varying lens design.

> I hope this quick, non-technical explanation makes sense.

It's an excellent explanation of so-called optical vignetting. Lenses also suffer from natural vignetting due to the so-called cos^4 law. This is because the light that is incident at oblique angles is spread over a larger area than light of normal incidence. (Compare this to the heating of the earth by the sun at noon, which is right above your head, and in the late afternoon, when the rays of light are at grazing angles with respect to the earth.)

The vignetting that Bob describes is prevalent at full aperture, but can be fully cured upon closing down the lens a few stops. Natural vignetting is independent of the aperture, and is responsible for any corner darkening that remains.

A third source of corner darkening is mechanical vignetting by improper lens hoods or filters. Not very interesting, as it is the fault of the user and not of the designer.

P.

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] RTS III

> From: "Austin Franklin" austin@darkroom.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 
> To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] RTS III
>
> Isn't the film flat on the vacuum plate?  If so, how are different film
> thicknesses taken into account?  Is the plate actually a pressure and vacuum
> plate, such that it presses the film toward the lense mount such that the
> distance from the front of the film to the lense mount is fixed?  That would
> mean there is no channel that serves the purpose as described above.

The pressure plate is pressed forward by spring action and meets two rails, one above and one below the shutter opening. The film rides on two other rails. Just prior to the exposure it is sucked flat by the vacuum pump, which is just a piston in a cylinder activated by a solenoid. That's why it doesn't work at longer shutter speeds.

Bob

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Scratched 2.8 C lenses

>quarter-wave sections.
>Richard Thank you for your quite correct and erudite reply.  The
>point I was trying to establish was that a reflection from the first
>surface of the lens does not cause flare as light reflected from this
>surface goes out away from the lens and can cause no further
>problems.
>I admit  there will be a loss of image intensity due to this lack of
>impedence matching but there should be no effect in terms of loss
>of contrast or spurious secondary images, as this is the first
>surface.
>IF however we place a filter in front of this surface then none of the
>above is true and the reflected light can be reflected once more
>from either the rear or front surface of the filter and re-enter the
>otical path and make its way to the film plane to cause all the
>mayhem that coating was intriduced to prevent.
>This was the point of mentioning filters in this context.
>All the best
>Larry Cuffe

Lots of snipping...

This is true for light reflected back into the object space, however, the glass-air surfaces also reflect light back into the lens. The flare light is reflected multiple times in the lens, although its intensity falls off rapidly. So, there is still some flare from the front surface if it isn't coated or the coating is damaged. The amount of degradation of the image contrast is likely to be slight, unless the surface is forming a ghost image.

A filter on the lens effectively becomes another element even though its flat. It adds two surfaces, with attendant reflections.

The point I was trying (and am trying) to make is that a filter does not decrease the flare of a lens but rather increases it to some extent, depending on whether the filter itself is coated.

The damage done by flare depends on a couple of factors. If its plain flare its distributed pretty evenly over the image area and causes a loss of shadow contrast without affecting highlights much. In B&W; this can be compensated to some extent by increased development, and by choice of a short-toe film. For color work the flare results in desaturation, especially of darker colors, which can not be compensated for in any easy way. Internal reflections may also show up as ghost images, depending on the lens design. These can be more than annoying in any kind of photography. Coating can help reduce them, but probably does not get rid of them.

Flare can be mimicked by spherical aberration, which also can result in an overall "haze" of light, reducing contrast and color saturation. Of course, coating does nothing to cure this.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001
From: J Patric Dahl,n jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
Subject: [Rollei] Velvet in the camera

The Original and early Standard Rolleiflexes had black matte velvet in the camera to reduce interior reflections. It must have been just as effective as the later baffles. Why was this solution abandoned? Doesn't Hasselblad use something like this on some camera models?

/Patric

Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Kiev 60 Black Paint - Follow Up

As posted earlier, I painted the mirror box of my Kiev 60 with a flat deep black paint. Shot two rolls of Plus X Pan on my office buildings to see if I could pick up flare from all the glass surfaces. Just processed the negs and can report no flare problems - nada - nothing. So, for 79 cents (USD) and a half-hour of effort I can forget about the dreaded Kiev 60 flare problem forever. The negatives are crisp and razor sharp. Curiously, no frame spacing problems - the spacing is right on the money and even end to end. The meter in the TTL mirror prism is worthless. I yanked the batteries and went to my trusty Luna Pro.

I have upgraded my Kiev 60 from "sell" to "keep".

Regards,

Marv

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Re: UV Filters and flare

The filter introduces two new air/glass interfaces, so it will increase flare. Possibly not by much and you may not detect it, but there is no way it can do other than increase flare. A proper lens hood is the only thing that will reduce flare.

Bob

FRom Rollei Mailing LIst:
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: Jan Bottcher jab@bios.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Film canister as a lens shade for 35s

just so much, that the rest won't lead to vignetting.

Don't forget to get the inside dead flatt black. Try to get a rubber lens shade with 24 (for Tessar, Triotar or Xenar) or 30.5mm (for Sonnar) thread and cut off the rubber, this will make it way easier to get your construstion to stick to the camera.

Jan

PS: Don't forget to label it "Rollei" and "Germany"!

David.Clark@Walsworth.com schrieb:

> Maybe someone can help me save a bit of experimentation.  If I make a film
> canister into a lens shade for a 35s, how much will I need to cut off?

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" neupert@int.fhg.de
c Subject: Re: SW lens hood

If your Superwide has a C-lens you can either use the screw in lens hood for the 38 or the 50mm C-lens. They replace the filter retaining ring. I use the lens shade for the 50 mm lens which is 2mm longer, does not produce visible vignetting and is more common on the used market (though still expensive, one German dealer has it in stock for 129,-DM ~ 60 US$ at http://www.hassi-foto.de/)

Ulrik

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
From: Michael Waldron michael@cadogan.net
Subject: Re: SW lens hood

you wrote:

>If your Superwide has a C-lens you can either use the screw in lens hood
>for the 38 or the 50mm C-lens. They replace the filter retaining ring. I
>use the lens shade for the 50 mm lens which is 2mm longer, does not
>produce visible vignetting and is more common on the used market (though
>still expensive, one German dealer has it in stock for 129,-DM ~ 60 US$
>at http://www.hassi-foto.de/)

I have the C lens and also use the screw in hood for the 50mm C-Lens when carrying the camera around by hand (I sort of view it as a lens protector). Fully stopped down, I do think that there is very slight vignetting (really a modest darkening) of the corners which usually only shows up in the sky. I really only print digitally, so I fix it in Photoshop. Because the shade is round, it doesn't really stop all flare situations as effectively as a square shade.

Since I use the Lee system for filters, I use their compendium shade when doing things tripod mounted. The shade is big like the hassy pro shade and not really practical when doing hand -held shots or travelling, etc. I also think it would fall off if I dropped the camera and thus wouldn't provide as much protection as the screw-in. It would also be expensive relative to a screw-in, but is much more useful and can be used on most all lenses.

Hope this helps

Michael

Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001
From: greg greg@on.aibn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens hood or no lens hood?

ERNReed wrote:

> Would you mind sharing details of your homemade hood for the Canonet?
> E.R.

Quite simple really. I found a small plastic face cream jar that is an exact press fit over the outside circular diameter of the lens. Sawed the bottom off the jar with small hack saw and sanded it down to remove any rough edges. Then spray painted the thing mat black. It looks great and no one would suspect it is homemade. The secret would be finding another jar the exact same size.

[Ed.note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted lens tester, Leicaphile, author of numerous articles, books, and even CDROMs related to photography and Leica etc...]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: imx imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] UFO's

The notion of a truly flare-free lens is a fiction. When applying the laws of refraction on a bundle of skew rays, falling on a lens surface you can easily observe that a fair amount of light rays will stray, and will bonce through the optical system in uncontrollable paths, sometimes forming a secondary image, sometimes a general veiling glare. One can use the proper techniques: blackening of lens rims, blackening of insides of mounts, creating light traps, applying multicoating and using a properly designed shade, but it is impossible to create a system that is absolutely flare free in every possible shooting situation.

Even the best cars with excellent roadholding will slide out of a tight corner when the angular speed is higher than the traction of the wheels can handle and/or the driver does not know how to control the car.

I may state that I have in my files of test slides a number of occurrances of flare with EVERY LENS I have ever tested, Leica and otherwise. The fact that one may occassionally encounter flare is bad, but unavoidable. To make the occurrence of flare more manegeable, we need to be able to replicate the situation exactly in order to study the phenomenon. And here lies the trap: when persons note that they have less flare with lens A than with lens B, it is invariably in different situations. So there is no real comparison. I have had several occasions where photographers did send me pictures (I get pictures every day for analysis and study, which I gladly do to help Leica photographers to make more enjoyable pictures) with large and unusual incidences of flare. Asked to create a picture with the same lens under identical situations, most failed to do so. IF you wish to study a penomenon only one occurrence, however disturbing, does not do! ANOTHER PERSON has to create the same phenomenon, otherwise we must accept the idea of a once-in-a-lifetime-situation.

In many cases, with guidance and perseverance, we succeed to isolate the source of the problem. Scientific experiment means reducing the noise from cause and effect and getting to know the source, that is being able to recreate the same phenomenon in a series of experiments. Sometimes we do not and we have to accept a mysterious occurrance of flare, a socalled UFO, Unexplained Flare Occurrence.

If ever there is an unscholarly approach to discuss these problems, it is to allow oneself to extrapolate from one incidence to a general conclusion.

And to identify one of many possible causes as the real one. On the valid assumption that the light patch on the example of the 2/35 ASPH is real, how do we know without comparison and replication of this patch in a second controlled situation that it is indeed caused by the propensity to flare of this lens?

There are many questions to ask and verify before we can even begin to get to grips with this remarkable phenomenon.

It is to early to jump to conclusions, as the evidence is scanty, and a convincing explanation is fully absent. To note simply that it must be the lens and its lack of flare control, is not the best method to get to the truth.

It is the same as if we accuse a person of murder, just because he happened to be at the crime scene.

Having studied and discussed and generated hundreds of photographs with phenomena of flare, I am not inclined to draw quick conclusions, as this is really a complicated topic.

Erwin

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@marcgs.com
Subject: Re: Lens shades

Derek,

I have both types of shades and like them. I use the bellows shade when doing a patient tripod type of shot and there are flare sources.

There are two types of bellows shades, at least. I have the older non-folding variety and carry it in a plastic food storage container that fits inside my tripod/flash bag, which is a tennis bag. The older one is not too expensive at, say, ebay, but you need to be careful to get the right Bay 50 and/or Bay 60 adapter ring, as you require.

Peter

> I own three Hasselblad lenses -- 50, 80, and 150 (all C lenses) -- each with
> its own square or round lens shade.
>
> I'm wondering how much of a difference something like the pro shade  would
> make over what I've got now.  Everyone seems to recommend the larger  shade
> (including Wildi and Adams) so I feel certain there's a difference -- my
> question is whether the difference is noticable enough to go to the  extra
> effort and expense of the pro shade.

...

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001
From: Michael Waldron michael@cadogan.net
Subject: RE: Lens shades

...

I have the 38 SWC, 80 and 150. I have a regular shade for the 38 (actually a round one for the 50) and I have a Lee compendium shade, which is functionally the same as the hassy pro shade. For this non-t* lens, the compendium makes a slight difference under normal conditions, but a big one where I have the sun near the field of view -- the big shade can be extended to the limit of the field of view of the lens, which is not true of the round one.

In the case of square shades for the 80-150, I think there is less of an issue. The one big advantage is that you can use cheaper square gel filters a big shade (it is especially good for neutral density graduates). Since the compendium collapses, I do not think it is that much more of a pain to carry about than 3 hard shades. You do have to be careful about the right extension, though. If you spend a lot of time carrying the camera around your neck, then the regular shades are really the best. If you are spending time setting up a tripod, filters, etc., I don't think the bigger shade is that much of an issue from a logistic point of view.

Michael

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: Re: 50 C lens Problem?

If the flare is at the top of a photograph (which it is) and if it caused by the film back, it would have to come from the "bottom" of the magazine. Not the top. Remember, the image is upside down on the film.

I believe the problem is the filter. Filters are not coated like lenses. Zeiss lens coatings have to me an order of magnitude better than most filter. When you put a filter in front of a lens, you have just made the wonderful "lens" anti-reflection coating useless. And you are relying on cheap filter coating.

I'd put my money on the filter causing the flare, not the lens.

Been there too many times myself. Was "always" the filter.

The rule of thumb is that if you have any bright light sources or high contrast areas in your photograph, don't use a filter unless you check out the image v-e-r-y carefully on the ground glass. And you can still be fooled.

Jim

Evan J Dong wrote:

>Derek,
>
>It might be your magazine back has a light leak at the top.  Another
>possible is that the shutter within the body is not closing correctly.  I
>had a similar problem like your with my new 503CW. Ony my first time out,
>I was high up in the mountain shooting landscape scenics. After I had my
>chromes processed I noticed this problem.  Hasselblad had me bring in all
>of my equipment that I used that day. Needless to say, they discovered
>that it was my new 503CW and one of my A-12 backs.
>
>Hope this might be of some help to you.
>Evan

...

From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001
From: Andrew Moore dmm@bronze.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [Rollei] lens cap storage: velcro!

> The question was asked what do you do with the lens cap when you are in
> the field.

Put a patch of velcro on the outside of the cap, and a mating velcro surface on the back or underside of the camera body. Get the adhesive backed kind (make sure the cap and body surfaces are cleaned before applying). I can't recall which type of Rollei you're using but this might not work so well for curved caps such as some of the TLR caps. You can also use one of those cap-keepers they sell at photo stores, but the downside is that you create a small and annoying pendulum when the cap is hanging off the body that way. And the string wears out and you'll end up losing the cap anyway. Velcro! No accessories required.

--Andrew

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek krkk@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Series filters and sizes

Hi Kelvin,

You may be right, but see Ansel Adams " The Camera" Page 73. Wherin it is stated that "vignetting may not be noticeable until the lens is stopped down". I suspect that folks reporting vignetting wide open were using grossly inappropriate lens shades. This has also been my experience practically.I have used my Lee compendium shade extended with this lens with no problems. IMO, the British made Lee is the best AFFORDABLE compendium shade available. It's a reaL JEWEL. I must add also, that the 150 Kalienar is hardly my favorite lens!

Best wishes,

Kevin

....

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax Lens Shades

I agree about rubber hoods. The best ones I have found are the ones Mamiya makes for their lenses. The rubber is better quality than most and stiffer.

Bob

> From: Joe Doehler contax@doehlerUSA.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Sat, 05 May 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax Lens Shades
>
> Hi:
>
> I prefer soft rubber shades myself, because they provide some "bumper"
> protection. For Contax hoods, check the Contax Catalog at:
>
> http://24.22.76.133/contax/index.html
>
> Joe. 

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax 645

> From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] Contax 645
>
> That's part of my point!  I've NEVER in 30 years of photography heard  anyone
> complain about their Hasselblad having "contrast" problems...so yes, I  can
> believe that under certain circumstances the newer lenses/bodies MAY  give
> some barely perceptible better contrast...but I think it's a problem  that
> never really existed in reality.

If it wasn't a problem, why did they fix it with that black flocking material?

The newer bodies have significantly less internal reflection than the older ones.

Incidently, the first company to notice that mirror box reflections were a problem in all SLR cameras was Fuji, who used black flocking material inside the mirror box on their ST701 and subsequent SLR cameras. It did make a difference, as confirmed by magazine tests at the time. Since the Fuji ST series were M-42 mount it was quite easy to test exactly the same lens on their body and several others.

I don't know all of the details, but Polaroid is somehow involved in this as originator/supplier of the black material used today.

Bob

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: 14mm f2.8 lens cap

you wrote:

>A while back someone on the list said they were trying to devise some  sort of
>protective cap for the new 14mm f2.8 lens.  I cannot remember who it was  but
>hope that he sees this and will let me/us know what he has been able to  come
>up with so far.  I would feel better knowing that I could have something   more
>secure than a piece of cloth protecting the lens.

OpTech Hood Hat. See http://www.optechusa.com/lens.htm#hood

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: Mon Jul 16 2001
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Keith Wiebe" keithw@southwind.net
[1] Re: Sunshade for 65mm 6.8 Angulon??

If I remember correctly (early last yr or yr before) I had one of those and what I did was got a oil seal from an auto parts store and epoxied a common 49mm filte without the glass into the seal and took the spring out of the seal and it slipped real easy over the lens. Just pop the seal on and off-no need to screw.

Keith Wiebe

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Date: Tue Jul 17 2001
[1] Re: Sunshade for 65mm 6.8 Angulon??

> dkfletcher@aol.com  (DKFletcher)
>
>Does anybody know what the filter thread for the 65mm Angulon is and if  there
>is a shade available for it.  I have a nice compact shade for my 90mm  Angulon
>that is perfect size and would love to find a similar one for the 65mm.

Not sure of the filter thread size. I use a slip on Kodak Series VI adapter ring 1 1/4 in, 31.5mm, with a Tiffen Series VI shade.

Chuck

From hasselblad mailing list;
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
From: Peter Klosky peter.klosky@marcgs.com
Subject: Re: 150CF vs. 150CFi

Let me describe the conditions where I saw flare in the field, and also some tests I did today.

I was using the 150CF with a Hasselblad UV filter, and no hood.

Today, I set up the camera and pointed it at a tree, with the sun about twenty degrees above the field of view, so it was outside the frame. I saw a lot of flare. When I removed the UV filter, the situation improved, slightly. Adding the lens hood was a significant improvement.

Without the hood, it was easy to see the sun shining on the parts of the lens barrel which hold the lens elements. I continued to experiment with the filter and hood in various conditions, and found that the hood helped or at least did not hurt. However, the filter did degrade the image in certain conditions.

The test I would like to run next is the 150CF vs. the 150CFi. I may try to borrow one from a local dealer to test for myself, to confirm the marketing claims and other reports of its improved flare resistance. On the other hand, a new 180CFi might be even better, as this lens would give a more appropriate field of view for wedding ceremony shots.

In the mean time, I plan to use my lens hood more often. This is advice I pass out often on this list, so it wouldn't kill me to follow my own advice.

I appreciate all the comments regarding this flare situation,

Peter

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: andermar@teleport.com (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: advice on sun shade

Nicholas O. Lindan nolindan@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> And just about all of us use our hats instead.

I've plugged this before, and will again. A Voss Professional Gel Filter Holder (about $42) has two spring strips that will grip any lens from the very small up to about 70 mm. Gel filters slide in, and it has two barn doors, (180 deg. from each other) that work great as lens shades. You can clip it on at any angle needed. Very lightweight.

--
Mark Anderson

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: advice on sun shade

I think that referring to lens shades as "sun shades" reflects a misconception. The purpose of a lens shade isn't just to prevent direct sun light from striking the lens. If that were the case nobody would sell lens shades since a hat, dark slide, or any other solid object can be used to block direct light from a single source such as the sun. The need for a lens shade is actually greatest in diffuse lighting situations, such as bright shade, cloudy days, etc., where the extraneous light isn't coming from a single direct source. In that situation a hat, dark slide, etc. won't work and some sort of a dedicated lens shade is necessary.

...

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Promoting photo flare / sun flare

mm, you want great big schmears of light, weird streaks of fog, glowing bits of hot spots, light angels, echoes of the diaphram, loss of image detail, loss of color saturation.

use a mirror, or shower door glass, crinkled aluminum foil just outside of the lens view. a piece of broken CD, another use for an AOL coaster. place them inside of a lens hood, like a square bellows.

place same inside the camera bod just out of the way of the mirror.

use a star filter, difractor or rainbow filter. maybe use a prism to catch the light and direct it into the lens. stretch a piece of wire or mylar silver tinsel across the lens, or one of those kid's holographic decals.

use a hi key vignette

place mirrors just outside the image area, or maybe hidden behind the subject to blast light towards the lens.

NOTE: all these will direct sun light into the lens (which causes flare) and also causes eye damage which could cause permanent loss of vision, either from the killing of cone receptors and/or gradual corneal cataracts. So while you are out there, wear your earphones on your walkman so you can go deaf at the same as you are going blind, hey it worked for me...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Multi-Coatings

shino@ubspainewebber.com wrote:

>does this imply that some very late mid-70's F's are multi-coated?
>a multicoated TLR with all the F features would be a remarkable
>camera indeed, one which i never thought existed.

Rei

Yes, such exist and have been documented. But bear in mind that the differences between an uncoated lens, and a single-coated lens, and a multi-coated lens, are incremental and relatively minor: a lot of perfectly fine pictures have been taken with uncoated lenses, and you can still get flare in a multi-coated lens if you don't sit up and pay attention to details!

Best,

Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net

From hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Hanson Photography info@hansonphotography.com
Subject: RE: 150CF vs. 150CFi

The change in internal coating to dramatically reduce flare is one of the improvements indicated by Hasselblad. In an issue of Hasselblad FORUM within the last year (it's quarterly), they show comparison shots showing MAJOR improvement in this area vs. the old CF lenses. I don't doubt that this has been addressed with these changes, but I find that the longer lenses seem more prone to flare than any other lenses I've used. I have to be extremely careful to avoid shooting into the sun, even with a hood. If the sun hits the front of the lens, forget about it! I guess this is why they are so insistent on folks using the Pro-Shade...

b r a d l e y h a n s o n
Seattle, WA
http://www.hansonphotography.com

From: Paul van Walree <odobenus@xs4all.nl>
[update: Paul van Walree info@vanWalree.com http://www.vanWalree.com/] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: flare and distortion pages
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001

 It has been a while since I announced my page on chromatic aberrations
and got useful feedback. Now I have pages up regarding:

flare: http://www.xs4all.nl/~odobenus/fi.html
distortion: http://www.xs4all.nl/~odobenus/di.html

Regards,
W.

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: experimental result surprises Re: non-coated..coated...multicoated
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>wow! not many of us hack our own lenses ;-) nor many places to get 'em 
>coated if we could ;-) thanks for sharing this note on your experiences 
>;-)
>
>my main interest in the quoted article was as the owner of a number of 
>these coated but not multi-coated older optics, often simple designs 
>(tessars etc.) in fixed focal length lenses. It is very hard (read 
>impossible) to get an outdoor standardized setup for testing flare (dang 
>sun keeps moving too fast for me ;-) to confirm/deny my suspicion that my 
>multicoated versions work better in flarey situations than the older 
>optics, and much of the literature and esp. marketing ads would have you 
>believe single coated lenses are at a huge disadvantage. As you noted, the 
>real gap is between uncoated and coated optics; the multicoated optics get 
>better light transmission but not so much improved flare/ghosting unless 
>they are more complex designs (e.g., zooms, more than 5 groups etc. ). 
>That makes me feel better, at least, about continuing to use these older 
>lenses and worry less about the flare performance I'm getting too ;-) 
>
>grins bobm
>-- 

There ought to be a way of setting up using artificial light for
flare measurement. It would have the advantage of being more
reproducible. If spectral charistics are important strobe light is a
fair approximation of sunlight.  Carefully controlled experiments
using film should be enough although some aerial image measurements
would also be useful. 

  I suspect a special camera might have to be constructed to eliminate
internal reflections as nearly completely as possible to isolate the
flare from the lens itself.  There are probably existant set-ups for
doing all this but I don't know where they might be published. I
suspect that at review of the cumulateve indexes of the Journal of the
Optical Society of America might turn something up. 

  Beside coatings internal baffling of lens cells and mounts are
important. Kodak seems to have understood this and done a good job.
Ilex not so. I have a post war f/4.5 Paragon with very serious
internal reflections from the inside of the lens cells which requires
stopping down to f/8 to eliminate. Not damaged anti-reflection paint,
just bad design. This lens is a particularly egregious example but
shining a flashlight through other lenses will turn up those with bad
internal reflections. Coating won't fix this. Zeiss also seems to have
done a good job of reducing internal reflections on their lenses. 

  I would be very interested to see what differences can be measured
between uncoated, single coated, multicoated lenses of various types.
Single coating does make a noticable difference even for fairly simple
lenses (Tessars). Multi-coating should also make a noticable
difference but it may be subtle in comparison to single coating until
the lens becomes complex enough. 

  In principle multicoating should make some difference in color
purity even for fairly simple lenses since single coatings are not
very effective at the ends of the visible spectrum.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 
From: Richard Cochran rcochran@lanset.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is it so hard to make a fast lens?



ArtKramr wrote:
> 
> >etter than the fast ones when measured at apertures they
> >have in common, if only for having fewer elements with
> >correspondingly less flare.  But I wouldn't be surprised to
> 
> By that logic the old ssngle element box camera lenses should be the best
> performing of all.

No, zero-element pinholes would be, and they are, from the 
restricted standpoint of flare.

But re-read what I said more carefully.  I said the slower lenses
are typically better than the fast ones whem measured at apertures
they have in common, IF only for having fewer elements with
correspondingly less flare.  There may be many other reasons the
slower lenses are typically better.  

--Rich



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about old, old uncoated lenses
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 

photoassistant@hotmail.com (WL) wrote:

>I have a bunch of old lenses (everything from daguerrotype lenses to
>older uncoated aerial lenses from WWII) and wonder if I should put a
>yellow filter on them. What advantages/disadvantages will result from
>not using a filter on these older lenses? Basically, I am just
>wondering if it is worth the trouble to put yellow gels on these
>lenses. I am just shooting b&w; obviously.
>
>thanks,
>
>William

  I will only add a little to Mike Gudzinowicz excellent response.
 
  Filters do not take the place of coatings. The purpose of a lens
coating is to reduce the reflection from glass-air surfaces, which is
due to the discontinuity of index of refraction. The coating improves
the "match" between the glass and air. Single coatings work best at a
single wavelength, multiple coatings are used to broaden out the
spectrum over which the coating works. 

  The use of an external filter does nothing to help reduce
reflections. In fact, if the filter is not coated, it simply adds two
more reflecting surfaces. 

  The amount of flare light from a lens depends on the number of
glass-air surfaces in it, the more surfaces the more flare. Since the
light gets bounced around between surfaces (like looking into facing
mirrors) the rate of increase in flare with surfaces is not linear.
For instance, the amount of flare as a percentage of transmitted light
(for average glass) for six surfaces (Tessar or Triplet) is 2.5%, for
eight surfaces it becomes 4%. 

  So, if you want to use filters make sure they are coated and use
them for color correction rather than to try to reduce flare. 
  
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com>
Subject: [HUG] Re: HUG Question

 you wrote:
>I recently attempted to purchase a Lindahl Bell-O-Shade for the CFI lens.
>The shade said it was for Hasselblad CF lens.  The dealers said it would
>require an adaptor that was not in stock.  Any know if this is true or what
>are you suggestions for a lens shade?

The Bell-O-Shade is an adjustable pro lens hood that reduces flare and 
increases color saturation. It
                     fits a number of cameras and most lenses from 35-105mm 
on 35mm format, 80-150mm on 6x6/6x7
                     format and 90-180mm on 6x7 format. The hood is 
constructed of a quality bellows material and
                     durable injection-molded ABS plastic. The Bell-O-Shade 
can be extended 2" to 6" using appropriate
                     extension rods, allowing it to be used with a variety 
of different focal length lenses. Next to the lens is
                     a 3" x 1/4" square slot to accommodate filters. The 
front standard accepts 4.5" square montaging
                     masks (for multiple exposures) or vignettes.

                     NOTE: This item mounts directly to Hasselblad CF (Bay 
60) lenses. An optional adapter ring is
                     required to fit CB, CFi and CFE lenses (LIARHCB). 
Other lenses require an optional size 8 adapter
                     ring.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com



From: DBaker9128@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 
Subject: [HUG] re: flare reduction  CB >> CT* >C  ?? 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net

Mr. Monaghan wrote:
"My impression from the press releases was that the newer lenses were mainly 
using superior baffling (and lens mount flare spot reductions?) to reduce or 
minimize off-axis hot spot (sun..) flare. I don't recall if the coatings were 
improved significantly over T* or not?"

Yes, I understand the same as you. I have pasted in two URLs which (I believe 
you refer to) that talks more about the subject of the CB/CFi/CFE lenses 
performing better than the C, CT*, and CF lenses in high stray light 
environments. 

http://www.hasselblad.com/press/detail.cgi?old/920654927.txt

http://www.hasselblad.com/articles/flare.html

Doug from Tumwater



Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Non Contax Advice From Hasselblad Users

>Snip Hasselblad offers half a dozen bodies,  dozens of
> lenses, and every imaginable sort of accessory. Contax offers one body and
> 7 lenses.
> 
> None of this relates to either system's ability to product quality images
> nor to the remarkable degree of automation with Contax offers. It's marketing.
> --
> regards,
> Henry Posner


I just heard this thing about how discerning pros and amateurs shy away from the
internal focusing glass because of too many elements making for too much flair.
A Norwegian guy who MTF"s Nikon glass is said to talk about this.

If this is the case than Zeiss's decision to come out with the newly designed
internal focusing 120 macro for Contax would get me less shivering in my shoes.
Perhaps my new CFi 120 macro would deliver better results despite a more
traditional design! But not despite but because of!


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/


From: "Namexa" namexa2plug@home.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do you use a lens shade?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 

    A lens shade is one of the best accessories you can use. Take the
greatest, sharpest and most color corrected lens that costs a zillion bucks
and the image can be destroyed by lens flare and I don't mean artistic
flare.
     I recently bought a Lindahl compendium shade (used) and adapted it to
fit most of my lenses, 35mm to 4x5. I rarely take a photo without it. You
can use a hat or darkslide for many situations but it is a guess at best for
position and only shades from one direction. So, for my advice, definitely
get a good one, used if need be.
--
Never Forget Your Dreams
Mike Darr
Namexa Images


From: kirkfry@msn.com (Kirk Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do you use a lens shade?
Date: 16 Jan 2002 

"Namexa" namexa2plug@home.net> wrote...
> A lens shade is one of the best accessories you can use. Take the
> greatest, sharpest and most color corrected lens that costs a zillion bucks
> and the image can be destroyed by lens flare and I don't mean artistic
> flare.
>      I recently bought a Lindahl compendium shade (used) and adapted it to
> fit most of my lenses, 35mm to 4x5. I rarely take a photo without it. You
> can use a hat or darkslide for many situations but it is a guess at best for
> position and only shades from one direction. So, for my advice, definitely
> get a good one, used if need be.

Do the comparison.  With and without a good compendium lens shade
outside with 50% sky in the picture (no direct sun).  All that extra
coverage of that $1,000 lens tosses extra light onto the sides of your
bellows.  Even though it is black, some of the light still bounces
onto to the film and degrades the shadows.  A compendium bellows cuts
out that bouncing light.  You will see a dramatic difference in the
shadows of the negative. Do the test.


From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do you use a lens shade?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 

Lens shades aren't needed with direct sunlight striking the lens. In that
situation you can use your hand or a dark slide or whatever to shield the
lens from the direct light.  Lens shades are needed in bright, diffused
light. In those conditions non-image-forming light is striking the lens from
all directions so your hand, dark slide, whatever won't work. The reason
people buy lens shades isn't because they're ignorant of the possiblility of
using their hand or a dark slide to shield the lens from direct light. They
spend up to $500 on a compendium shade because they realize there are some
fairly common situaitons in which your hand or a dark slide won't do the
job. I think they make a difference in bright, diffused light.
.
"Joseph O'Neil" joneil@multiboard.com> wrote 
> On 16 Jan 2002 williamjdaum@aol.com (William J Daum) wrote:
>
> >I am new to working in LF and was wondering what you experts do. Seems to me
> >this is a very good idea, but see very little written about it in the books
> >I've read. Also,  to those who do, what kind have you found to be the best?
>
> During the summer, I take off my extra wide brim Tilley hat,
> and use it as a lens shade.  Crude, but effective.  I thnk it makes a
> difference.
> joe
>
>
> http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca



From: "Dale T. Strouse" dstrouse@imagina.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do you use a lens shade?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 

William J Daum williamjdaum@aol.com> wrote:

> I am new to working in LF and was wondering what you experts do. Seems to me
> this is a very good idea, but see very little written about it in the books
> I've read. Also,  to those who do, what kind have you found to be the best? 
> 

I use a Lee Wide angle lens hood that I like. It works just like a hat
or a pulled darkslide except that with the lens hood your hand is free
and the lens shade won't drift down into the frame. It also comes in
handy for filters.

Dale T. Strouse

-- 
www.dalestrousephoto.com


Subject: Re: Yashica 124 Lens Hood>?
From: "JeffW." elox@HOT.rr.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 

Three options:

1. Bay 1 to 49mm adapter and a 49mm screw on hood.

2. Watch for Hoya or Tiffen Bay 1 hoods (and others). I bought mine for $8.

3. Watch for a Kodak series 5 or 6 Bay 1 adapter and use Series 5/6 filters
and hoods.

JeffW.
> What's the deal with these? They only accept the orig.?
> 
> I would much rather not pay the inflated $50+ eBay prices
> if their is an alternative...
> 
> 
> MKT



Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: 50 hood on SWC?
From: Peter Rosenthal petroffski@mac.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>

Hey Bob-
You can actually see vignetting at the film plane!  Just remove the back and
lock the shutter open at max aperture.  While looking through the lens from
the back (about 16" away), go to the very corner of the frame by tilting the
camera away from your eye.  If you see ANY of the aperture go dark, you've
got vignetting. Do this in a very bright room or outdoors so your eye is
"stopped down."   You'll also find that any vignetting is much worse wide
open than stopped down.  This is much easier to do than to explain and have
tried to show this phenomenon to several people that just cannot see it.
Most could tho.  Good luck.
Peter

> Subject: 50 hood on SWC?
> 
> Hi guys-
> 
> with the recent events alot of this stuff may be 'trivial', but it's
> important to carryon.
> I personally had a neighboor whose wife was on Flight 11, leaving her
> husband and two daughters, 7 & 4....
> 
> Any way- Does anyone know if the lens hood '50' (for older Distagon 50 & 60
> 'C' lenses) will vignette on an SWC? The threads are the same, it's the same
> as the '38' hood, just 2mm longer, according to Nordin's  Hasselblad
> Compendium... I just don't know if that extra 2mm will wind up in the frame.
> 
> Anybody?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Bob Keene
> Keene Vision Photography
> "Creating Visions That Last A Lifetime"
> 781/449-2536
> www.keenevision.com 



From: brougham3@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>this is why I'd like to do some blind lens tests to see if these opinions 
>are supported by reliably and significant differences in the images 
>produced. 

Why?  I'd rather spend my time taking pictures that I want to print than
taping newspapers to walls.  :)

The main thing I've noticed is in contre jour pics, Leica glass has
considerably more contrast than Nikkor glass.  Slap a filter in front of
either lens and the difference disappears, though.  They both suck.  :)

[Ed. note: contre-jour - against the day or the light = backlighted photos]



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about old, old uncoated lenses
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 

photoassistant@hotmail.com (WL) wrote:

>These posts have been very helpful. 
>
>I guess I am mostly interested in optimizing the performance of two
>different kinds of lenses. (1) Brass lenses from the turn of the (last
>century) and (2)Lenses for my Graflex SlR (such as the Cooke F2.5 and
>F2.9 Anastigmats). Sounds like that filtration is definitely the key.
>There is quite a noticeable drop-off in contrast using these lenses
>unfiltered and with modern pan film. I guess that for the landscapes
>and portraiture I usually do, I will try green filters with the brass
>lenses and yellow filters for the Graflex lenses. I will probably use
>the resin filters in front of the glass. Y'all have been a real help.
>
>William

  Filtering doesn't help flare although it may improve the sharpness
of lenses which are not well color corrected. Few lenses made after
the appearance of "Jena glass" in the late 1880's have serious
chromatic problems, except for the single cells of convertible lenses,
which are often not very well corrected.

  Flare comes from light reflected from glass-air surfaces due to the
difference in the index of refraction. The greater the difference the
greater the amount of reflection. However, the difference in high to
low index glasses is not great enough for this to be of practical
significance in actual lenses. Coating provides a sort of gradual
transition in the index, reducing the flare. This is very
oversimplified but a more exact definition is not needed here. 

  Flare can also come from any other reflecting or diffusing surface
associated with the lens (ignoring for the moment flare from the
inside of the camera). Lens mounts must be baffled and painted flat
black to eliminate internal reflections. Not all manufactuers are
equal in their care of mounting. Kodak, for instance, was very
careful, Ilex not so careful.

  I've found a great source of flare to be a sort of haze which all
lenses seem to accumulate over time. I've seen this on lenses as
little as ten years old. I don't know the exact source. It may be junk
emmited by the anti-reflection paint or it may be some sort of
tarnish. Its most apparent in sealed cells, like the front cell of a
Tessar or Triplet, where the surfaces are never cleaned because they
are not easily accessible. 

  This haze absolutely destroys contrast, even for a coated lens. Many
old lenses, thought to be low contrast, will be found to have quite
good contrast once cleaned up. 

  The haze comes off with any lens cleaner or window cleaner. The
problem is usually in opening the lens. 

  Some lenses, especially larger lenses, have back retaining caps.
These give easy access. Usually they can be gripped with the aid of a
latex glove and unscrewed. The element will fall out with a little
coaxing. Never try prying or otherwise forcing an element out, you
will chip or crack it. Sometimes the glass can be lifted out with the
aid of some sticky tape.

  Some lenses have front retaining rings. These are best removed with
a tubular friction tool. Anything tubular with the right diameter will
do. Cover the rim of one end with double stick tape or a ring of
latex. Some lenses have the threads painted over (Kodak f/7.7, 203mm
Ektar or Kodak Anastigmat, for instance). The paint can be removed by
gentle scraping and the very careful application of some Acetone.
These lenses look like they don't have threads but they are only
hidden. 

  Another cause of flare, but not so easily fixed, is defective cement
in cemented elements. Generally, old lense were cemented with Canada
Balsam, essentially pitch from a pine tree. Over time the balsam tends
to dry out at the edges and crystalize. It also oxidizes, becoming
yellow. If the degradation is confined to the rim of the lens not much
damage is done to the image. However, its possible for the entire
layer of cement to become cloudy, destroying the image quality. 
  Synthetic cement separates in a different way. It can form large
bubbles or, as I have observed in some Kodak lenses, it can become
turbid. This turbidity acts just like you had a layer of thin ground
glass in the lens. You can see it by shining a flashlight through the
element and examining it with a magnifying glass. Sometimes reflected
light makes the cement easier to see. It looks like reticulated film
or even an orange peel.

  Recementing lenses varies in difficulty depending mostly on how the
glass is mounted. If the element can be remove from its mount easily
recementing is quite practical. If it must be machined out the job
becomes expensive. Most Tessar type lenses have permanent mounts for
the rear (cemented) element of the type called a spun-in or burnished
mount. These are excellent from an optical standpoint but require
machining to remove the element and some sort of machining to re-use
the mount.  People like Steve Grimes do this sort of work but it is
very skilled and doesn't come cheap. 
  
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Fixer Man" kenburns@twave.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens Caps?
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 

Kaiser has a line of the old-fashioned slip on kind that starts at 15mm goes
to sizes over 100mm.  B&H; has them starting at about 6 bucks each.

Fixer Man



"Robert Simpson" rss@clover.net> wrote...
> Does anyone know of a source for generic lens caps of various sizes? I am
> looking for the plastic slip-on type.
>
> -Robert



From: Bill Jameson bjameson@mail.med.upenn.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Testing for flare [Was: Favorite Normal Lens]
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 

Bill Tuthill wrote:

 
> Bill, how do you test a lens for flare?
> 
> I've tried shooting into the sun, 90 degrees to the sun, and so forth
> but I often don't get the flare I expect.
> 
> Can you always see it in the viewfinder?

You can see it in the viewfinder much of the time if you use the depth of
field preview (to stop down the aperture to the one you're going to shoot
with, instead of the wide open the viewfinder on modern SLR's show.

My statement re flare and the Sigma 17-35 was also meant to include the
results of 8 rolls, 288 photos that I shot trying to replicate every way I
could imagine using that lens in the foreseeable future. I don't always do
as much testing (in this case I mean burning film) with a new lens but
perhaps my initial unease about Sigma or my joy at finally having something
wider than 24mm had something to do with it.

Bill Jameson


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Advice needed prime v zoom lenses
Date: 25 Jan 2002 

Without actually doing some experiments its difficult to make
definitive statements about flare.  Flare would have consequence if it
ever became noticeable.  In the lens I mentioned, the 17-35, I haven't
noticed any significant flare in my work, and reviewers have commented
very favorably on its flare characteristics.  I've never shot with an
80-200, so I can't really comment here.  I do know that the built-in
hood on my 180 prime is pretty short, and I doubt that it offers any
more protection than the hood supplied for the 80-200/2.8.

Brian


"J W Wojtaszek" wojo@nycap.rr.com> wrote...
> Flare may be inconsequential to you and the original poster
> (landscapes and such) but a significant concern to me.
> You can always use a proper lens hood to reduce flare on a
> prime, but on a zoom you have to accommodate the widest
> setting.  On a cinema set where lighting can be controlled a
> zoom likely would be adequate WRT flare but live shooting
> such as found at a HS football game flare has a real impact.
> Shooting a 180 without the hood extended by accident gave
> some really awful results.  I doubt that a hood designed for
> a 80-200 would have helped much.  Wide open is pretty much
> necessary as well as pushing PJ 800(old stock) two stops.
> 
> "brian" brianc1959@aol.com> wrote...
> >
> > The one area where zooms might have an inherent
>  disadvantage is with
> > flare, but this is often a non-issue as long as ghost
>  images are
> > avoided in the design.  Having a large number of elements
>  does not in
> > any way limit sharpness, but there will be some internal
>  flare.
> > However, no 35mm zoom lens has anything like the
>  complexity of zoom
> > lenses designed for broadcast television and
>  cinematography, and flare
> > is certainly well-controlled in these applications.
> >
> > I am a lens designer, and I can tell you that it is
>  possible to
> > achieve amazingly good correction in a zoom lens.  Better
>  than you can
> > imagine.  In cinematography, for instance, zooms are now
>  completely
> > dominant.  And this is not because film makers are willing
>  to make
> > sacrifices in image quality.
> >
> > Brian


From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001
From: Dave Saalsaa SaalsD@cni-usa.com
Subject: Re: Harder coatings


Hi Roger,

   With the advent of the Summicron M in 1969, Leica improved their
coatings to more durable types.  The previous  coatings of the 50's and
earlier as you are probably quite aware of were not the most abrasion
resistant especially when cleaned with old underwear and chewing tobacco
spit. ;-)  Leica continued to increase the durability of the coatings to
this day with the latest version of lens coatings being the most
abrasion resistant.  According to John Van Stelton of Focal Point, it is
not only the composition of the coating material but also the
temperature and method of application which determines the durabililty
of the coating. Leica improved their method of application greatly in
the late 60's and that is the main reason that we don't see the number
of cleaning marks on these later lenses that we do on the lenses from
the 40's and 50's.


Dave Saalsaa


>Since my only reference, Rogliati, pays little attention to coatings,
>does anyone have any information as to when or at what serial
>numbers Leitz began to use the modern much harder coatings?
>You know, those that Ted can rub the bejeepers on with his
>unmentionables without making the cleaning marks so often seen
>on the older glass.
>
>--
>Roger


From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 
From: Dave Saalsaa SaalsD@cni-usa.com>
Subject: Re: Harder coatings


I think you're probably right, Roger.  One other feature, which I
beleive may also factor into this,  is the fact that Leitz was able to
make use of some newer optical glasses which also allowed for much
higher coating application  temps which previously was not possible
because of the high failure rate of the older glass formulas.  This also
from John Van Stelton at Focal Point.  Failure rate due to thermal shock
of high temperature coatings accounted  for an extremely high discard
rate until Leitz was able to come up with new optical glass formulas
which could withstand the application of high temperature coatings. This
probably accounted for some of increased durability of Leitz coatings of
later years.

Dave Saalsaa


From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 
From: Ulrich Olaf Olaf.Ulrich@nbgm.siemens.de>
Subject: Re: Does 50mm/1.7 lens give a flare in sunlight?

sn4@altavista.com> wrote:
> I am a beginner and am planning to buy
> a 50 mm/1.7 lens ...

  Good idea!


> I heard that 50 mm gives a noticable
> flare in sunlight and am concerned about
> it. Is this true?

  Of course that's true!  Any lens will give flare when used at
close angles to the sun or to other light sources.  However,
different lenses will give different degrees of flare.  Partic-
ularly the AF 1.7/50 mm lens is one of the least flare-sensitive
lenses available.  The general rules are:

  * Older lenses give more flare than newer ones.
Not because they'd age but because newer lenses
are less sensitive to flare by design.

  * Lenses with many glass elements give more
flare than lenses with a small number of elements.
The AF 1.7/50 mm has, I think, five elements while
most zoom lenses have a dozen and more.  Thus, zoom
lenses are way more sensitive to flare than plain
prime lenses.

  * The use of a proper shade reduces flare (except
at direct contra light, of course).  The AF 1.7/50 mm
has a tiny built-in, retractable lens hood.  This is
better than nothing but still better is to buy a
real, bigger hood (thread diameter 49 mm).  Bigger
hoods work better than small ones.

  The AF 1.7/50 mm lens offers extremely good performance---in
terms of sharpness, contrast, _and_ low flare.  It is relatively
cheap, fast, and very versatile.  Do not hesitate to buy one.


Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)
olaf.ulrich@onlinehome.de
olaf.ulrich@nbgm.siemens.de



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 
From: ctgardener@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Does 50mm/1.7 lens give a flare in sunlight?

....


And don't forget that filters make your lenses more prone to flare,
especially cheap, uncoated filters ... single coated are better, and
multicoated are better still.  Even with multicoated, you're adding
another glass surface (actually two surfaces) and it sits out farther
than any lens element, where it may or may not be shielded by a lens
shade.

- Dennis


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001
From: mlipphardt@ameritech.net
Subject: Re: Does 50mm/ 1.7 lens give a flare in sunlight ?

ALL lenses will flare under the right (wrong) conditions.  The 50mm
f1.7 is one of the least likely to flare, and you can minimize the
chances of it by using a lens hood.  The lens I have has a lens shade
built in, but I use a collapsible rubber one for better protection.

Typically, the more element groups a lens has, the more likely it is
to flare.  The 50 has ver few in comparison to, say, almost any zoom
lens.  And yes, zoom lenses are somewhat more susceptible to flare,
although good ones are pretty resistant as well.  But if you are
going to be shooting under the conditions which would tend to cause
flare, you can't do much better than a 50.

Mike


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: 
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Uncoated lenses vs. high or low contrast subjects
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 


"Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Mark Anderson wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking of carrying two 6x9 cm. folders while hiking.
>> I'm thinking that the uncoated should be used for high contrast
>> subjects.....
>
>The flare from an uncoated lens is rarely uniform: one gets streaks,
>blobs and 'ghosts' in the 'wrong' section of the image.  For black
>rocks on a snow field an uncoated lens may be a good choice,
>but for images with large low value (dark grey) areas the highlights
>are going to invade the shadows in an ugly fashion.
>
>Someone makes a diffusion disk you can mount on the lens for pre-
>flashing.  Taking an out of focus picture of a uniform tone works
>just as well - use a grey card, uniform sky, snow, 3x5 index card...
>
>I would use the uncoated lens for low contrast subjects with
>muted highlights.  A really good lens hood is a good idea with
>an uncoated lens.
>
>An alternative is a century graphic with two roll film holders
>or sheet film.
>
>--
>Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
>Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

 Ghost images depend a lot of the design of the lens. For example, I
have a couple of 135mm, f/4.5 Zeiss Tesssars on very old Speed
Graphics. They are late 1930's lenses, uncoated. They have no ghost
images at all. In comparison, an uncoated 127mm, f/4.7 Ektar has a
slight ghost image from bright objects near the center of the field.
The image is very dim but detectable on objects which cause no ghost
image with the Tessars (bare light bulb). The Ektar is also a Tessar
type lens and is of excellent performance. There is some slight
difference in curvature or spacing which allows the ghost image. A
coated version of this lens does not exhibit the ghost image but
otherwise the images are pretty much identical.

  The more glass-air surfaces a lens has the more likely it is to have
ghost images or to project an image of the stop. Very complex lenses
even with good coatings are plagued by ghost images and stop images.
The corny effect of multiple images of bright objects (like the sun)
in movies, gotten with complex zoom lenses, is an example.

  The primary effect of uncoated surfaces is a general haze over the
entire image. In B&W; it is similar to using a long toe film. In color,
it tends to either reduce saturation or to give a slight color cast if
there is a very bright object of a certain color in the image.

  The effect can be subtle.

  Again, this depends on the number of glass-air surfaces the lens
has. The amount of flare goes up very rapidly with the number of
surfaces. A lens with six uncoated surfaces, like a triplet or Tessar,
still  has pretty good contrast, but at eight surfaces, the contrast
begins to suffer, and eight is about the maximum that can be tolerated
without coating.

  It is the shadow contrast which is mostly affected. The amount of
haze is constant so mid and bright areas are not changed very much.

  As far as scene contrast I don't think the lens will make much
difference, particularly a fairly simple lens like a Tessar.

 Its important, BTW, that the lens be clean. Haze inside a lens, very
common in older lenses, does far more damage than lens flare. Most
lenses can be opened for cleaning without much surgery and the haze
comes off with any lens or glass cleaner.

  Before good hard coatings became generally available around 1946,
lens designers tried to minimise air spaced elements in order to
reduce flare. Hence designs like the Dagor (three cemented elements in
each cell), the Double Protar (four cemented surfaces in each cell),
and the Zeiss Sonnar (a seven element f/1.5 lens with only six
glass-air surfaces), which have many cemented surfaces. There are many
advantages to using air-spaced elements if flare can be controlled so
the whole design philosophy changed as soon as coating became
available.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Don Wallace" don.wallace@nlc-bnc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Uncoated lenses vs. high or low contrast subjects
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001

"Don Wallace" don.wallace@nlc-bnc.nospam.ca> wrote
> "Mark Anderson" andermar@teleport.com> wrote ...
> > I'm thinking of carrying two 6x9 cm. folders while hiking.  I'd use one
> > for low contrast subjects and N+ development and one for high contrast
> > subjects and N- development.  Both have 105 mm Tessar lenses.  The
> > significant difference is that one has coated optics and one uncoated.
> > So,  which should be used for which subjects?
> >
> > I'm thinking that the uncoated should be used for high contrast
> > subjects.  As the flare will help to decrease the contrast and aid
> > shadow detail by essentially flashing the film.  Is my thinking correct?
> >
>
> There are two kinds of flare which are the result of uncoated lenses:
> streaks
> or bright spots on the film because of bright light in the subject; and
> lowered
> overall contrast because of internal flare. The first kind can be reduced by
> a
> lens hood. You are referring mainly to the second kind, I think, so maybe
> using the uncoated lens for high contrast subjects will work. Try it out
> and get back to us.

I forgot to mention in my posting that there is a very good discussion of
this second type of lens flare and its effect on contrast in the first
edition of Ansel Adams "The Negative". The current version of this book is
a complete rewrite of the one Adams published in the 40s. Many libraries
have copies of the earlier edition. If you can't find it (or don't feel
like looking), I can send you a photocopy of the relevant chapter.

Don



from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 
From: "pusang_puti" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: D.I.Y. Proletarian Lens Shades

Comrades!

Pictures of Proletarian Lens Shades (reads like Lenin's Shades,
doesn't it? :) have been posted at the 'photos' section, under the
album name "LENS SHADES".

Any comrade in need of lens shades in suitable sizes (but have denied
of these by the capitalist lens shade factories) can make his own
lens shade for his gloriously superior Industars, Jupiters, or Gelios
glass.  Two pictures posted in the same album (marked "with lens
shade" and "without lens shade" illustrate how important hoods are.
Both were made with Industars. The marked improvement in contrast and
lack of flare ghosts underscore the difference which these hoods can
make.


The lens shades are made from cardboard and paper.  Straight tubular
hoods are easy to make and can be used with Industars and long
Jupiters.  A tubular lens shade for the Industar 50 or 22 can be just
3 long.  The one for the J-9 can be 5 to 6 cm long.  These hoods slip
into the the lenses.  Being of light material, they need not be
clipped or locked.  A piece of felt secures the fit.

Carboard is shaped around the lens to determine  the fit.  Then it is
covered with one or two layers of brown paper (the brown paper
packaging from Russia or Ukraine is perfect for this:), stuck with a
lot of glue or paste.  The glue saturated paper will harden the
cardboard so it will retain its shape.  When set, the insides are
painted with dead black paint, and the outside can be painted
similarly as well.  A layer or two of lacquer (for the exterior only)
will make the hood more robust.  Add whatever design you wish-
Lenin's profile, Gorby's forehead mark, - or line it with snakeskin
and yak hair if you wish.

A tapered hood can be made by attaching three short ( 1 to 2 cm)
tubes of increasing diameters.  The tube with the smallest diameter
should be able to slip on the lens. A slightly larger one goes over
this, and third one goes around the second tube in turn. A fourth can
be added still.

The sample pictures shown at the "lens shades" album show how
effective these humble devices can be.  You might even love your
Industar even more after using them with these hoods.

And like most soviet cameras, proletarian DIY hoods aren't very
pretty.  But they're certainly functional!

Jay
writing from the new department at the No 2 1/2 Remont Trudkommuna


from minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 
From: "manfredmaisch" manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: Wide-angle-lens tests

Hi,

I uploaded 3 files in a new folder "lenstests" with tests of the new
Sigma 2,8/20-40mm and 3,5-4,5 15-35mm and the Tamron 2,8/14mm
It is striking, how extremely the two Sigma zooms are sensitive to
straylight, in contrast to the Tamron prime! While sharpness and
contrast are not super, but ok, the straylight sensitivity is in my
eyes a killer for a wide angle lens.

Manfred



From: garymarklund Gary@Marklund.com
Subject: Re: Lens caps for Ektar 127mm
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002


Ken Smith wrote:

> mevansmi mevansmi@cbpu.com wrote 
>> I recently purchased a Kodak Ektar 127mm lens on ebay but it does not
>> have front or rear lens caps. Does anyone happen to know the correct
>> size push on caps needed for that lens? Thanks very much.
>> mevansmi


My rear lens cap is an old metal Kodak 35mm film can cap. The inside
surface with the threads has a very thin strip of felt around it. Fits snug
and works like a champ. The front one is a round piece of wood with at note
inked on it to remind the photographer to remove the rear cap (:-). My
Speed Graphic Pacemaker came with this.

Gary


From: "ajacobs2" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens shade problems woth Fujica GW690
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002


Here are excerpts from a conversation on the subject.....quite a long one in
fact and I get the feeling drop the lenshade idea altogether......on the 6x9
Even the newer models have only a small built in....
Enjoy.....

The negative images I've seen have discernable vignetting in corners, have
not seen prints or reproduction. Is this a serious issue when printing for
best personal work or with clients? Does it dissapear with higher f/stop or
has Fuji formatted this lens past its prime area of coverage? Any other
comments welcome. Thanks

Jim


Answers
that's funny I have the gsw and I would think it is more prone to vignetting
but i haven't seen any. My buddy has the gw and I've seen some of his tests
wide open on contact sheets and couldn't see any vignetting either. I'll
look again!

I use 2 GW670s (same lens) extensively with & without filters. I've not had
or heard of vignetting with this lens, unless a sunshade or some issue with
stacked filters occurs. Considering the long life (this is a very mature
product) of this lens with both 6x9cm and 6x7cm formats, I would suspect a
flawed technique or a malfunction in that specific camera/lens.
IMHO, the attached sunshade is a marginal one at that.


Jeff, the 6X7 format rectangle's coverage is well inside the 6X9's coverage.
If there were any vignetting at all visible in 6X7 it would be serious on
the 6X9. What's needed is for someone to look at their chromes taken with
the 6X9 camera wide open (f/stop 3.5) and see if there's any vignetting.

James: I agree with the contention that 6x7cm is covered nicely. My original
point is that this 90mm f/3.5 lens and design has been around a fairly long
time on both 6x7cm AND 6x9cm formats. I've not heard of vignetting with it
except in regard to stacked filters. I'm guessing there are more GW690 users
than GW670 users from the feedback in various forums. There may be something
wrong with your specific lens?

Thanks everyone for inputs.. vignetting is there, but its minimal. As some
have suggested, most often it will show from umbration (shadowing) from
filters or poorly fit lens hood.

The film flatness is good with the Fuji, though as others have tested, the
Mamyia 7 is flatest. Actually the vacuum backs are flatest, but they are
restricted to lab or aerial applications and require a battery and vacuum
pump.

For most new cameras in the MF size, film is the limiting link, not lens
performance which is usually good to excellent... an ok 4X5 lens will
generally produce better 30X40's than the best 2 1/4's simply because
there's no film granularity and the neg area is twice as large.. its hard to
find lenses 2X better. Also because most 4X5 images are taken on tripod
after the image has been composed with a loupe.

In any case, the response seems to be Fuji 6X9 has minimal vignetting and
good film plane flatness, good optics and light weight. Drawbacks include
inconvenience of metering by some other means, lack of time exposure, and
interchangability of lenses..

well James I'd consider the ebc lenses better than good, but that's only
when comparing them to lenses that are normally bolted to blads......are
these daylight images or flash pics? I'm not sure I understand the basis for
your post...are you considering buying a fuji?

Sorry, I reserve superlatives for true rarity.. the Fuji lens is superior to
most. How's that!

Yes I was considering buying one but had some reservations. I shoot mostly
with Linhof selected lenses in 4X5 format. I've had Hassy's, Rollie, Plaubel
and Linhof medium format. The subject matter I wanted it for was very fast
action hand held shooting with high color saturation films of typically low
ASA (not more than 100), which means high shutter speeds and open f/stop of
3.5. Therefore I wanted to know about vignetting and film plane negative
flatness.

Again, thanks for all the input on the Fuji. This site is a treasure of
knowledgable and generous photographers willing to share their experience.

I've used four different Fuji rangefinder cameras of various configuration
(6x9 & 6x7, 90mm and 65mm) using Velvia and Reala (a few years ago) and
printed up to 24x30 with nary a hint of vignetting...t

Just looked at some slides and negs I took last week with a GSW 690, mostly
shot wide open (largest aperture). Nope, not even the slightest hint of
vignetting. Perfectly even all the way into the corners.


the fuji's top shutter speed is 1/500th, so it may not do the work you
describe. The lenses are top notch, you won't find a better lens for any
format even from germany(you must however take into consideration the
slightly bigger neg also). I understand why you bring up film flatness
issues and yes that is much more important than a good lens but I assure you
my prints from the fuji are tack sharp and vignetteless corner to corner.
I've heard that the ebc line outperforms the planar t line in resolution
tests, the ebc is slightly more contrasty than most planars but I shoot
print film primarily black and white so I have control over contrast and in
any case it's easy to test and find less contrasty emulsions. I don't think
the fuji is built for the work you do, I bought mine for the opposite
reasons...i wanted to use delta 3200. I shoot linhof select only in 4x5
also, so I understand the qualitative nature of your question more clearly
now and if you'd said you wanted a great camera for street shooting ...I'd
say, "GET IT! and you may begin to consider buying a fuji lens for your
linhof. The difference is slight!"

-- triblett Lungre-Thurd, October 05, 1999; 10:37 A.M. Eastern



Just to add slightly to Tribby's comparative comment - there is lurking on
the 'net somewhere a comparison between a Fuji GSW lens and a Zeiss Biogon.
Apparently the Zeiss is less sharp.

I currently own and use the GSW69, and used to have a GW69, and have had no
vignetting problem with either camera. I have read a previous post which
referred to "the GSW vignetting problem" but this was in reference to the
viewfinder image on the GSW which does lose the corner due to the angle of
view and the intrusion of the lens barrel.
Great cameras, and with Velvia the trannys make editors go weak at the
knees.


I diddled with the sunshade and it can easily get cockeyed and cause a
slight vignette wide open. If the shade and filters are deployed properly,
should be no problem. IMHO, the attached lens shade is the weakest link on
the lens. But, for resolution, contrast and consistency, the lens is A-1.
Judging by others' comments here, why don't we petition Fuji to do our wish
list for the GW series?

The only time I have ever found even the equivalent to vignetting was when I
used a flash that did not cover the slightly wide-angle view that the GW690
provides. My fault, not the camera's. In available light, wide open... like
the others who posted here; no sign of vignetting. Those Fujinon lenses are
incredibly sharp and contrasty as well.

I've been using a GW690III for a couple of years and have observed the
vignetting problem described here, as well as mentioning it here in MFD.
Normally I use Provia 100 film, and for typical moving subjects on a sunny
day here in the UK the right exposure is 1/500 @f5.6 There is noticeable
vignetting in the corners at this aperture which gets progressively worse as
you open up the aperture. It is most noticeable in the corners of blue
skies. The problem is much less at f8, but I can't report at f11 as I rarely
use that aperture. I don't use any filters, only the built-in lens shade,
which I would think is unlikely to cause any vignetting itself. The position
of the vignetting in the 6x9 frame is such that anyone with a Fuji 670 would
not see it.

In a test of the Hasselblad Xpan I read a reviewer say that the corners of
the frame were darkened in the sky area and that this was due to an effect
of the sky rather than actual lens vignetting. I'm not an optical expert and
so can't comment on this authoritatively, except to say that the effect on
the pictures in the mag looked like vignetting to me !

By way of comparison, my Pentax 67 lenses (105, 55) don't suffer from
comparable vignetting at any aperture.

In summary, answering the original question "How serious is Fuji GW690
vignetting?" I'd say that based on my experience if you're taking
photographs that include the sky, at wider than f8 aperture you will
definitely notice vignetting. With hand printing you could compensate at the
printing stage. If doing unretouched repro in a magazine from
transparencies, it might be a problem.

Sincerity is the bait of probity, is it baffling? Perhaps there's an answer
here. I just looked at a chrome from a Fuji 90. It included a deep blue sky
and yes there is vignetting. However, the shot is taken into the sun.
There's no lens flare, the sun was perhaps at the 11:00 and 5- 10 degrees
above the actual view, the glass itself was protected but the shadows
definitely point at the the camera. If one were actually there, the sun
would be fully in your face.

Perhaps its a function of baffling, every pun intended of course. The
extreme interior edges of the barrel may be dampening out more light under
into the sun conditions, and they may be doing it more with blue light
wavelengths. So! Those who have chromes, sort them into two piles A. into
the sun including blue sky B. sun at back grey day and see if there's a
difference.

Its been my experience with other lenses that if there's any vignetting it
occurs with every shot, but that some compositions disguise it with busy
content, while others seem to emphasize it. A test would be to shoot and
absolutely consistent nothing colored wall with perfectly even lighting..
and also to take four or five images on a crystal blue sky day including an
image of 2/3rd sky into eight different directions and see if it gains in
any direction.

I almost never shoot towards the sun or have much sky in my photos.
Interesting! I wouldn't see it in 6x7cm version, but I probably should check
some of my earlier work for same concepts. When I used to shoot 6x9 it was
with Horseman cameras and never gave coverage a thought except at 4x5. I
really appreciate reading the above, it gets me thinking in new ways! Thanks
to James for keeping this thread going. Personally I really prefer 6x7cm
format for a few good reasons. One more just surfaced, but it was dumb luck
on my part. Thanks again!

I'll tag one more time: In telescope tuning, the light baffle issues are
somewhat critical. Proper baffling significantly enhances the image
produced. Perhaps manufacturing consistency is wanting in the case of 90mm
f/3.5 fitted to the 6x9cm format? I wouldn't realize it at 6x7, I hope.
Other threads in other forums have compared lesser expensive lenses against
top name brands with similar features. Consensus is that a well made lens
beats (for picture quality) a sloppy one, no matter the cost or brand name.
I guess that's obvious. But it puts the onus for lens testing on the user in
the real world. Thanks again for letting me participate!



[Ed. note: following posts note how different standard hoods may even work with superwide..]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide


Bill Grimwood wrote:

>I need a lens hood for my Hassy Superwide.

Is there such a thing?

The "lens hood" for my 40CFE is all of 1/4" deep. Not much of a lens hood.
But all that can be expected on a Wuper Wide lens... :)

Jim


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" ulrik.neupert@int.fhg.de
Subject: AW: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide

Moin,
there is a lens hood for the Hasselblad SWC. Earlier versions for C-lenses
are round and replace the filter retaining ring, the shade for CF- and CFi
lens is square has a bayonet and is made for 38, 50 and 60 mm lenses.

The lens hood for the C-lens SWC has "38" engraved on it and is often
ridiculous overpriced on the secondhand market. You can also buy the shade
with the "50" engraving for the 50 mm C-lens which is more common. I heard
that it does not cause vignetting, in case it does you would have to shorten
it by 2 mm.

Ulrik
...


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: dick chandler EL haicons1@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide


  I have the B60 38-60 hood on my SWC/M.  It's about an inch deep.



From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: Tourtelot tourtelot1@attbi.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide

Bill-

Just so you know, I have never had any cutoff on my 38 C Biogon with the 50
hood.  It works fine for me on both lenses.

Regards,

D.


From koni-omega mailing list:
To: koml@koni-omega.org
From: Clive Warren cocam@cableinet.co.uk
Subject: Re: [KOML] lens flare

 Nancy Brown wrote:
>
>GENDERWARS3@aol.com wrote:
>  > anyone have trouble with lens flare using the koni wide angle lens?
>  >
>Yes, the Hexanons are a little flare-prone, I guess the coatings were
>not as sophisticated back then.I usually carry an old "crushable" type
>hat to help shade the lens.
>Robert

The secret here as suggested is using a lens shade - hats are great
for this!  I am a bit surprised that people are finding the wide
angle flare prone though. The coatings on the lens are fairly
efficient and in all the time I have been using a KO wide angle I
have not found flare to be a significant problem.

A wide angle lens by its very nature will be more susceptible to
flare than a "normal" focal length lens as it has a wider angle of
view.

Cheers,
        Clive




from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa pshinkaw@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Source of 40.5mm Sunshades

Kurt:

40.5mm seems to be making a comeback. I have several
40.5 lenses which I have been trying to equip with
lens caps for several years. I recently saw brand new
40.5 lens caps at a local camera store. Apparently it
is a standard size for some digital or mini-video
cameras. I bought a brand new, black plastic,
spring-loaded Minolta cap for $11.00 to fit my Helios
103. I also saw some 40.0 caps for Canons which might
fit 40.5 rims.  Check the video section of a camera
store. They might even have lens shades.




From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Source of 40.5mm Sunshades

I spoke yesterday with Jerry Deutsch, Manager at Adorama.  He confirmed
that they have the rubber hoods in 40.5 but says they do not have any
metal ones in that size.  He said he'd keep a look out for a supplier and
if he finds a source he will begin stocking them.

Bob


From: Bob Salomon bob@hpmarketingcorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Covers
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 

 "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com wrote:
> Zip-Lok sandwich bags (et al.) work in emergencies.
>
> Truly, dr bob.
>
> "Two23" two23@aol.com wrote ...
> >   I have a couple of used lenses I bought recently that have no lens
> covers.
> > Since I often just keep lenses on the back seat of my car, it's making me
> > nervous to see those unprotected surfaces!  Where can I get some generic,
> low
> > cost covers? I'm thinking there has to be something cheaper than twenty
> bucks
> > apiece for Schneider covers!
> > Kent in SD

Not if Zip Lock bags have plasticizers in the material.

Kaiser lens caps are available in push on sizes up to 120mm. The 120mm
cap has a list price of $12.50. Caps from 15 to 51mm diameter list for
$6.00.

52 to 77mm for $7.00
80 to 85mm for $8.00
90mm are $9.50 and 100mm are $11.50.


--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS



From: "Victor Bazarov" vbazarov@dnai.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Covers
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002


"Two23" two23@aol.com wrote...
>   I have a couple of used lenses I bought recently that have no lens covers.
> Since I often just keep lenses on the back seat of my car, it's making me
> nervous to see those unprotected surfaces!  Where can I get some generic, low 
> cost covers? I'm thinking there has to be something cheaper than twenty bucks
> apiece for Schneider covers!


Walk into your neighbourhood photo store with your lenses and
ask for the covers and try them on before you pay for them.  At
least that's what I'd do.  Also, a G*torade bottle cap made
a decent rear cover for one of my lenses after the threads were
shaved off a bit...

Victor


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: [Russiancamera] Another O/T Tip

"PRINGLE'S"[TM] potato chip containers (50 gr size, about 1/3 the length of the
classic can) make great storage cases for Jupiter - 9 lenses 9 (all common
versions, SLR or  RF).  Helios 44, and MIR 1 also fit.

The containers are made of laminated cardboard, and have a moisture-proof  cap
(to keep chips from getting soggy- if it worked for the chips, then it should
for the lens too!).  Give the cans a good WASH  first - unless  you like your
Jupiters to smell like chives, sour cream, or have crumbs all over them.  They
can also be painted to set them off from the others which contain the
'real'stuff, or you might end up watching the ball game with beer and munching
on a nice crunchy  J-9! :)

Thin foam can be wrapped around the lens before shoving it in  the can,  with a
little bag of dessicant (the "DO  NOT EAT" packets found packed with pills are
excellent for this)  for  long  term storage.

Jay



From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Filters

 Louis DiBacco wrote:
>Any brand recommendations for UV filters?
>
>I don't use hoods on any of my M6 lenses and the edges are getting very
>banged up. Thanks.
>
>Lou DiBacco

Lens hoods are probably one of the best photo enhanceers and lens
protectors available. Dramatically reduce flair and eliminate finger (or
other) prints.

Photographing through a filter has the ability to increase flare and a
finger (or other) print on a filter is as bad as if it were on the lens. It
steals sharpness and again, increases flare.

Forget the filter, use a hood. The factory supplies them for a reason. When
you store your lens, use caps. That's why lenses come from the factory with
caps installed.

Jim


From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 
From: "genkor" genkor@yahoo.com
Subject: The 50mm/f1.7 flare problem.

...I have got a flare problem with my 50mm/f1.7.
It flares just terrible with back lighting, even closed to f8.
With the sun outside, but close to the frame border it flares even
more then my old Sigma 24mm/f2.8 with the sun inside the frame.
The 50mm/f1.7 flare is stronger even of many zoom lenses (35-70mm/f4, etc.).
Is this kind of flare normal for such quick lens?
Is there an alternative? May be the new 50mm/f1.4 flares less?
... Gennady Korpachev

    ----------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, Minolta's AF 50/1.7 comes with flare built-in!  I was really
startled (and disappointed) to note a sun flare in a shot taken in a fog --
I couldn't see the sun, but the f1.7 could!  I had the opportunity to
compare flare in Minolta's prime lenses a few years ago -- a sunset over the
Pacific from Astoria, Oregon.  No flare in the AF20/2.8, AF28/2.8,
AF35/2.8?, but there it was in the 50!... and that was with or without
filters.

    I have an older AF 50/1.4 that I've yet to shoot in anger, but I did
note some flare pointing it toward the sun.

    From what I read on this list, either there is significant variation
from one lens to the next in how much flare -- or, most of us just don't
have a habit of shooting into the sun.  I love backlighting, and I often
shoot into the sun.  I am disappointed to note even the fine AF 100.2.8
Macro and the 200/2.8 has lots of flare... bummer!  (I shoot the AF 200/4
Macro a lot and it doesn't seem to produce nearly as much flare as the AF
200/2.8).

    All the suggetions for lens hoods, shading the lens, maybe coated
filters help, but if the lens was built to flare, ...

    Huff


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 
From: Gene Johnson genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollie Newbie wants recomendations for "practical accessories"

Olivia,

I'll take a stab at this.  This is how I see it.  The biggest improvement I
see from using a hood (and it is a big one), is improved contrast and
freedom from flare.  I think this is because the hood limits the light
hitting the lens to the light that will actually be in the picture.  Bright
light sources from outside the frame are blocked, and therefore can't bounce
around inside the lens and camera and eventually land on your film.  This
way, we don't "dilute" the image from the light you want,  with stray light
you don't want.  Bottom line is, you'll like your pictures a lot better when
you use a hood.  In my cameras I look for bright metal of any kind in the
light path and darken it with flat black paint.  Sometimes there'll be a
scraped lens ring or even a worn edge of the lens hood that'll reflect like
crazy from a certain angle.  A small dab of flat black model paint can help
a lot.

Gene
...


From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: oversized lens hoods for widish telezooms
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002

Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca wrote:

>Is there such a thing as a lens hood that is about 4" deep yet wide
>enough for a 28-70 f/2.8 zoom?  (72mm dia filter).  At 28 mm, the
>horizontal image is 75o wide.
>
>This works out to a lens hood that is about 9" at the far end!  (eg: 3"
>for the lens, and 3 in. each side to cover 37.5o (at 4" deep).
>
>I like shooting at near right angles (or less) to light sources.  The
>lens hood (if you can call it that) supplied with the Maxxum 28-70 f/2.8
>is a bit of a laugh (very shallow) ... to the point of not even
>protecting the glass from the odd bump...

If the lens can take a screw-in step-up ring
without vignetting, you can make and attach
big shades cut from flexible plastic
refrigerator dishes, sprayed black in the
inside (you may want to make it press-fit on
the outside of the current shade, instead of
using the step-up ring for attachment...).
I made one of these to keep side light away
from the big front of a Nikkor 15mm f5.6,
and it works well...


David Ruether
 rpn1@cornell.edu
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether


From: Ramon ramonc@surewest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: "Hood hat" vs. lens caps
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 

There was a thread here not too long ago about "the battle of the lens
caps" in which I mentioned an alternative to traditional lens caps, but I
didn't have the specific name or brand handy at the time.

 These excellent lens covers are marketed by "Op/Tech USA" and are simply
called Hat Hoods.  Here's the URL:

    http://optechusa.com/lens.htm#LENS

                 (---> you'll need to scroll down about 2/3 down the page).

 I'm very pleased with the ones I've been using on my longer lenses.
They're very effective protection against dust, moisture AND impact, and
they fit right over the lens hood.


 So far they're not available for any diameter smaller than about 70mm.

 Ram>n


Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 
From: Steve Kramer steve@seatraveler.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: "Hood hat" vs. lens caps

...(quotes above post)

Nikon makes them in smaller sizes as well as (I'm not sure which) Hakuba
or Hama, as well as the OpTech ones, but still not smaller than about
60mm. However "Etsumi" makes smaller round drawstring topped neoprene
bags, and if you cut off the drawstring, you have virtually the same
style hood in 50mm.

I have put these on every one of my lenses. I really appreciate that
little extra bit of cushioning on my lenses as I carry them lens down in
my bags to make changing faster. A very worthwhile investment of very
little money!  There is also one model made by a different manufacturer
(Etsumi?) that has a nylon drawstring 'skirt' extending another 2"-3"
inches beyond the neoprene, that secures it behind the lens hoods of my
longer tele-zooms. It keeps them from slipping off when I pull the lens
out of the bag.

Steve Kramer




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: Gerry Walden gwpics@ntlworld.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Service issues with Gateway...digital darkroom update

You have obviously never dropped a lens in the studio and had the impact
taken by the lens hood, which is cheaper to replace than a front lens ring.

Gerry
www.gwpics.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:anthony@atkielski.com]
Sent: 04 July 2002 09:38
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Service issues with Gateway...digital darkroom update


Mark writes:

> A lens hood does all the protecting one would
> usually need.

Hoods do not protect against dirt or fluids projected against the front of
the lens.  It's easier and safer to clean a UV filter than to clean the
front element of a lens.

> I've heard of people not using hoods indoors
> or in the studio. Weird!

Why would hoods be needed in such circumstances?  Their only purpose is to
project from stray light (especially sunlight), and this often is not a
problem indoors, and almost never a problem in a studio.



from nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 
From: Randy Holst mrvolvo@cableone.net
Subject: Re: Lens Hoods with Filters?

"Kwan, Michael (FXMHQ MYS)" wrote:
>
> ...I noticed
> that the hood is actually sitting at least 3 or 4mm more forward than
> without a filter. Would this cause vignetting at larger apertures?

In my experience, the Nikon hoods designated for specific lenses are
designed so that a Nikon filter can be used with the hood without any
vignetting.

> I use Hoya
> filters and the rings are rather wide. I notice that Nikon filters have
> narrower rings.

I have used Hoya filters also and have not experienced any vignetting
problems.  Unless they are very old filters, they aren't that much wider
than Nikon's filter rings.

> One more thing. Because I can't find a HS-11 for my E 50mm, I have this
> opportunity to get a HS-7 instead. I notice on the box where it says it is
> meant for the Nocturnal 58mm f/2.8 and the AF80mm f/2.8. Would the HS-7 work
> for any of the standard 50mm lenses including the 2 AF 50mm's?

Try finding a Nikon HR4 for your Series E 50/f1.8.

Here's an easy way to determine if any lens/filter/hood combination will
vignette:

Mount the lens/filter/hood you want to check on your camera, set the
focusing ring at the closest focus position, set the aperture ring to
the smallest aperture and depress the DOF preview lever to close down
the aperture and hold it there.  Aim the camera at a brightly lit white
wall and look through the viewfinder.  If you can't see any darkening in
the corners, the combination will not vignette.

Randy Holst
Boise, Idaho


From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 
From: Rick Housh rick@housh.net
Subject: Re: Lens Hoods with Filters?

...

>Mount the lens/filter/hood you want to check on your camera, set the
>focusing ring at the closest focus position, set the aperture ring to
>the smallest aperture and depress the DOF preview lever to close down
>the aperture and hold it there.  Aim the camera at a brightly lit white
>wall and look through the viewfinder.  If you can't see any darkening in
>the corners, the combination will not vignette.

That's exactly how I used to test for vignetting, when someone here (I'm
sorry to have forgotten who), pointed out that the focal length of the lens
shortens slightly as it is focused closer to infinity, and that actually a
lens may vignette more when focused at infinity, all other things being
equal.  Now, when I test for vignetting, I still stop the lens down to its
minimum aperture, but I test at both its closest focusing point and at
infinity, using a bright sky for the infinity test.  I have found that with
some hoods,  some lenses do indeed vignette when focused at infinity before
they do at their closest focusing point.  It seems especially true of
"close focus" lenses, where the angle of acceptance at infinity can be
considerably greater than when focused at some very close point.

I have also found it helpful to place a fingertip at the corner of the
frame, touching the edge of the lens hood, and move it slowly inward, to
detect when it does appear.  This gives me a better idea of how much leeway
I have with that particular lens/filter/hood combination.  If the
vignetting is caused by the front edge of the hood or the sides, you can
usually switch to a hood designed for a wider-angle lens to improve the
condition.  The HN-3 is a good universal choice for a "normal" lens under
such conditions.  However, if the vignetting is caused by the filter
impinging on the field of view at the back of the hood/front of the lens,
there's little you can do about that.

- Rick Housh -


from nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" LHHansen@zi.ku.dk
Subject: RE: Lens Hoods with Filters?

Hello,

Please note that a camera not having 100% finder coverage could pass this
test and still show vignetting on the frame.

Best regards,
Lars Holst.


[Ed.note: can lens shade get less costly than a loop of duct tape? ;-)]
From: "ajacobs2" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: LENS ENVY !!!
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002


Monopod?  probably more for support, easier to balance than carry the big
glass...

Notice the optional "duct-tape" lens shade enhancement also used for
stability....

--
Al Jacobson
Website:    www.aljacobs.com


Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 
From: "JIM" Firewagon1@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: LENS ENVY !!!

...(quote above post)

I'd venture, as a guess, that the tape is there to keep the hood attached -
probably the result of one too many careless contacts with the ground;)
These things have only one (1) small screw apparatus to hold these large
hoods on.  Haven't tried it myself, yet;); however, would guess it wouldn't
take much of an impact to finish that little jewel off??

Shoot'em up, large, small, taped or not, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest
will love you for it!!

Jim


[Ed. note: possible solution, no guarantees, good luck!]
From: "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Deformed Rubber Hoods
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 


Try dropping the hood into a pan of boiling water and letting the whole
thing cool down slowly.  Be sure to place the hood in such a manner to
prevent further deformation.  If this works you get the hood back - if not
you haven't lost anything you wouldn't have to replace anyway.  Sorry to
hear of this sort of thing as old classic equipment can be a treasure -
however I'm not sure about flexible hoods, some of which are not rubber.  I
guess you will find out.

Truly, dr bob.
"-" psleprob@hotmail.com wrote 
> Does anyone have any advice on how to reshape a rubber lens hood that
> has been stored in a way that mishaped it?  I have one that is supposed
> to be round and now it has a flat "side" to it.  I tried fitting the
> wide end on top of a rubber tube which was sized to put the hood back in
> its original shape and then heated it up with a hair dryer.
> Unfortunately, it want back to its messed up shape after cooling.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Doug


From: T.P. t.p@noemailthanks.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Hoods?
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 


Jim In which case, a followup: if I'm looking to buy a lens hood
>for a particular lens, what do I look for? (and come to
>think of it, what names and where do I look?) There seem to
>be quite a range of designs. And if the lens doesn't accept
>bayonet fitting, can they be screwed over the UV filter?

Hi Jim,

The best advice is always to use the lens manufacturer's dedicated
hood for each particular lens.

I had a couple of lenses whose dedicated hoods weren't particularly
good, and I modified them so they worked a lot better.  However, this
is not a job for the novice.  It took a long time to get them right.

I hope this is useful


from camera fix mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: Re: homemade lens cap...

Hi Chris,

You can make nice caps using cardboard.  The whole thing can be stiffened up
with paper tape or papier mache.  Then it could be spraypainted, or else
covered with leatherette.

Start by cutting a circular piece of cardboard big enough to cover the lens
front.  Its best to use the lens itself as the template for this.  Then cut a
strip about 5 mm wide and long enough to go around the lens.
The strip is attached end to end and the circular piece is glued on top.  It is
better to make the ring a bit loose since it still needs to be covered with
paper.

Using gummed paper tape, cover the sides, and the top.  You can also use tissue
paper soaked in paste or glue and coat the cardboard cap.  Once dry, the cap
will be robust enough. Spray paint it with black to make it waterproof and seal
it from humidity.

In the attachment is an example of this cardboard/papier mache lens cap.

Jay

camera-fix@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>Annyone have some good suggestions for quick and easy homemade lens
>caps? I remember reading once about how to make some nice leather
>ones, but as im all out of leather.... really I can think of a dosen
>ideas on this subjest, but I would like to collect some tried and
>true suggestions first.
>thanks
>
>-Chris


from camera fix mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 
From: "Abdon Gonzalez" abdon@sillypages.com
Subject: Re: homemade lens cap...

I always test old binocular caps for fit. Some are perfect for some
lenses; others are better than the original body caps on the old Nikon
pre-AI bodies.

A friend of mine found what he thinks is the perfect cap for one of his
Leica RF lenses from Reynolds wrap. The company makes a plastic wrap
with a rubber band that is a disposable, quick lid for bowls. The
smallest size fits over his 50mm lens, metal hood and all.


[Ed. note: thanks to Douglas Nelson for sharing these lens shade tips...!]
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002
From: Douglas Nelson nelson.douglas@epamail.epa.gov
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Why not use other brand lens shades?

I just bought a 55 size Konica clamp-on square shade to use on my Kiron
28. It's sold as a 24 or 28 shade. This Konica square shade really looks
like a winner for nearly any 55 filter size. It may even be worth using
a 52-to-55 step up ring to use it on a Nikkor or other 52-filter size
lens.

Fifty-five screw-on shades can  be found in camera store and camera show
parts bins from many manufacturers. Olympus screw-on 49-thread
wide-angle and 50-mm lens shades seem rather plentiful. I found a Tamron
shade in a junk box that fits the Vivitar Series One 90 Macro as if it
was made for it.

Doug Nelson
douglasfoto@hotmail.com




Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek krkk@earthlink.net
To: Russian camera list russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] metal lens shades

Hi All,
If I remember correctly, some folks were looking for metal lens shades.
I FINALLY received mine. I think they have been waiting for me for a
long time, but there was a communication failure.

The sizes I got were 49,55,58, and 62mm.

In the U.S., these can be ordered through your local camera shop from
Brandess Kalt Aetna.

Prices run from $15.95 thru $20.95, so,they are not cheap, but are
nicely made.

Size choices are very limited

regards,
Kevin



From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva Industar lens - four elements or three?
Date: 13 Dec 2002 

Lassi Hippel,inen lahippel@ieee.org

> Three reflections, one very weak and reddish. A Moskva-2 from 1953, i.e.
> 11cm/4.5 Industar-23.

I checked with the rear element of the CZJ Tessar on my CertoSix and
found that it gives three reflections. The third one is very weak and
very small.

I checked again with an Industar rear element and found similar. The
third reflection from the cemented surface is much smaller than the
other two ones. If you look on the rear element from the inner flat
surface, it is almost impossible to see the third reflection since the
first reflection is life size (the inner surface of the cemented
element is flat) and covers the much smaller reflection from the
cemented surface.

Thanks for all contributions 
Winfried 




From: "Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens hoods
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 

...

Lens hoods are only one out of a number of factors that you can use to
improve your images.

I have found the information on this page to be quite informative:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/mag4-6traudt.shtml


From: Hank Seidel seidel@ocean.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Homebrew lens shades?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 


Hi,

I have used a 100 sheet 4x5 film box. cut a hole in the center of the bottom of
the inner box to allow an old filter (without glass) to be mounted to the
bottom. This fits on the lens and then the other box pieces can have their
bottoms cut out so they can be slid on telescope style. Spray paint flat black
and glue a little felt on the sides for friction so the pieces stat put when
slid to the proper position. The aspect of the front opening is correct for
4x5.

Hank

"MVD@MVD" wrote:

> Hello:
>
> Any articles or rules of thumb on making lens shades for process lenses? All
> of mine have the glass right up front. I guess they were always shooting
> from behind the light.
>
> Thanks
>
> Murray



Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 
From: Charlie Goodwin cgoodwin@conknet.com
To: "hasselblad@kelvin.net" hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] re:Hood question

Actually re: all the hood questions recently.

Calumet sells an adjustable bellow hood that should cover most of the lenses
mentioned.   I bought their Calumet Compendium Lens Shade several years ago.

There are provisions for combinations of filters if wanted.   The shade has
adaptors for sizes from 49mm thru 105 mm and Bay 60.   Also some slightly
recessed adaptors for very wide lenses, when ever mm saved might allow a filter
w/o vignetting.   It is made of a material with "memory", flexible, but you
just pull it to the length desired, and it stays till you move it again.
Better experienced than described.

Charlie


From: "Louie Powell" lpowell1@nycap.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Homebrew lens shades?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003


A suggestion that I saw somewhere was to use a piece of foam - the kind that
is used in packaging computer equipment.  It typically comes in black or
dark gray, and because of the rough surface, it does not reflect light.

To attach it to the camera, use one of those double-clamps - similar to the
old-fashioned clamps used to bundle papers together in office applications,
only two of them attached at the handles by a short wire.  Attach one clamp
to the foam, and then attach the second to the edge of the front standard
and adjust the clamps so that the foam shades the lens from the sun.

Louie

"MVD@MVD" multi-volti@multi-volti.com wrote 
> Hello:
>
> Any articles or rules of thumb on making lens shades for process lenses? All
> of mine have the glass right up front. I guess they were always shooting
> from behind the light.
>
> Thanks
>
> Murray


From: "J.  Burke" burkeboyz@peoplepc.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Homebrew lens shades?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003


I had just posted a question regarding the size of the threading on my 480
APO Nikkor and got an 85 mm (?) reply. Well thats just what I needed to here
I guess. I had adapted all my LF lenses via step up rings to my Hasselblad
Proshade except the 480 Nikkor. Now with the help of a large clamp (approx
Dryer vent size or a little less) it works just fine on the 480 as well.
Nice thing is that the Hassy Proshade is marked for the FL of the Hassy
lenses which I then adapt to my LF lenses. 50mm Hass = approx 90 mm 4x5,
80mm Hass=150 mm 4x5, 150mm Hassy=300 mm 4x5....--------Simple enough.
Another bonus is I can use 4x4 filters on my Hassy shade thus can use them
on the Nikkor as well. I normally use 67mm B&W; threaded filters which will
not work on the 480 Nikkor.

J. Burke



From: Don Stauffer stauffer@usfamily.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Multicoated Lens Filters
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 

I tend to not believe this. A piece of uncoated glass can have about a
5% reflectance. Say we have a scene with about a 1000:1 contrast. That
is not unreasonable for a sunlit scene, even conservative. Say film
surface is also 5% (I think this is even low for film- I'd guess most
are about 10 %. Anyway, a single reflection from film to uncoated
surface gives us 0.25% of light from highlight back on film. But 0.1 is
amount of light in shadow detail, so flare is 2.5 times shadow exposure.

Now, what about focusing or defocusing? A flat plate perpendicular
actually AUTOCOLLIMATES, so flare light IS focused near edges of
highlights. So if you have a shadow right next to highlight, it WILL see
flare.

Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>  "jriegle" jriegle@att.net wrote:
>
>
>>I agree. Hold a lens up towards a bright window, but not directly at it and
>>look into the camera end. You should see faint reflections off the coatings.
>>Now hold an uncoated filter in front. You should see a large increase in
>>reflections. With a multi coated filter, there will be increased reflections
>>but not nearly as much as the filter with no AR coatings. So in my test, AR
>>coated filters do reduce reflections. Does this mean it will make a
>>difference on film? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the lens and lighting
>>situation.
>>
>>A lighting situation that caused annoying flare in a shot may still have
>>shown some flare even without a filter attached so it is best to avoid these
>>situations if possible.
>
>
> If you figure the percentage of "flare light" introduced
> by even an uncoated filter compared with the total light
> going through the lens, the amount is almost always below
> the threshold for shadow exposure on the film, and is
> not seen... In conditions where the added light is not
> diffuse (when light sources are much brighter than the
> rest of the image, and are relatively small in the image),
> the filter coating can make a difference, but it is
> slight...
> David Ruether
> rpn1@cornell.edu
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stauffer@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer


From: "Christopher Bush" cbphoto@NOSPAMcomcast.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: contrast comparison project ;-) Re: More Hasselblad questions
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 


> Why not do a contrast test?

I may do that, assuming my new lens get here fast-- before I have to ship
out the old one. I will also have temporary access to a newer 120mm f4 CFE
(renting it for a shoot tomorrow), and may be able to temporarily borrow an
old chrome 5.6 version. I'd really like to test a 5.6 T* vs a 5.6 chrome,
but don't have any handy.

My past experiences with the Rollei 80mm non-HFT Planar (SL66) were
incredible in flat-normal lighting, but I did lose a couple of great shots
to flare, even when the backlighting was slight. It's not always easy to
control--the nice thing about fashion photography is that you can shoot
*anywhere*. Non-ideal situations often make the best photos, if you're
technically prepared to use them effectively.

--
Christopher Bush
http://www.christopherbush.com


from russian camera mailing list:
From: "Parlin 44" parlin44@hotmail.com
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 
Subject: [Russiancamera] perfect makeshift hoods

My solution is to request for sellers to throw in a few scratched-up and
unwanted 40.5mm filters, as long as the threads are still find, knock the
glasses out, stack them up and VOILA! You'll have an instant (cheap) slim
compact hood.

Depending on the thickness, you need about at least 3 rings for J-11, 2-3
rings for J-3/J-8/H-103/I-61/I-26 and at most 2 rings for J-12.

You may need to flock (paint it matte black) the inner side of the rings to
avoid flare/ghosting.

parlin

----Original Message Follows----
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Hood for Jupiter 11?
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 

 Doug wrote:
>
>Has anyone had luck finding or making a lens hood for use with the Jupiter
>11? It seems that there are plenty of tele lens hoods out there, but none
>small enough to fit w/o adapter rings.

Any 40.5mm screw-in or 42mm slip-on hood will work. These are available by
special order from your neighborhood camera store from B+W or Heliopan.
The easiest solution is to pick up a Series VI adapter ring and a Series VI
hood. These are available all over the place used (Kodak, Ednalite,
Tiffen, Harrison & Harrison) or new from Harrison & Harrison for $25 or so.

Marc
msmall@infi.net


From: "Rick Beckrich" ribec@comic.com
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Velcro for lens cap lining: close but no cigar

Note that even at discount stores (w-m),
there is a wide variety of thicknesses
(and holding stregths) of Velcro.

Rick in DC


----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Chavez henricvs@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Velcro for lens cap lining: close but no cigar

Jay Y Javier wrote:

> Use the felt lip lining found in 35mm cassettes. Take one
> apart, strip the felt off and cut to size. Glue with
> 'pliobond' or a similar adhesive. Never had problems with my
> lens caps which received this treatment.
>
> Velcro is not the best material for this purpose. It is too
> bristly, and the bristles are too stiff and coarse.

Jay,
I don't use the bristley side, I use the soft side. I get a nice tight
fit that wears well.

HC


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 
From: "edriceus" edriceus@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lens Hood


Actually, I got the name wrong in my previous post.

It's the Hama Telematic zoom lens hood - very well made too.

Ed


--- In ManualMinolta@yahoogroups.com, "edriceus" edriceus@y... wrote:
> An excellent solution for a hood for a zoom lens is a "zoom" hood
> made by Hamas. It's a rubber hood that has "zoom" capability by
> collapsing and unfolding into three different positions for wide-
> angle, normal and telephoto positions.
>
> I've always been a bit bugged by stock hoods for zoom lenses. The
> length that's suitable for wide-angle certainly isn't suitable for
> telephoto, especially the irregular shaped butterfly or flower type.
> I read years ago that the proper length for a hood is the focal
> length of the lens itself. That may be a little difficult to
> achieve, but this hood should be quite sufficient for most practical
> lengths.
>
> The cheapest place I found them was at Adorama. They sell them under
> their name (Adorama) and here's a link to the 49mm one which shows a
> picture in all three positions.
>
> http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid;=10595083204984177&sku;=LNHZ49
>
> Ed



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bogdan Karasek: Your old Zeiss Tessar......
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 

...
> So I should be able, with care, to do some really sharp large format work,
> like tack sharp from corner to corner if not too far off axis?
> Incidentally, I've a notion I would benefit from a real lens shade
> (compendium?); something that can be mounted on the monorail itself.... Is
> that valid?
>
> Thanks for that info, sir!
>
> Bill Tallman

A good lens shade is always helpful. The compendium type
allows slewing the shade when camera movements are used but
a plain push on type shade will help when the lens is on
axis.

Contrary to popular wisdom a lens shade does not eliminate
flare from lack of coating. What it does to to eliminate
flare from reflections inside the lens mount and inside the
camera. This last can be considerable in some cameras. try
shining a flashlight through the lens from in front while
looking at the back of the camera. You will get some idea of
how reflective the inside surfaces are. Bellows are better
than smooth surfaces but still reflect some light.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sun 10/19/2003
From: Gordon Pritchard gordon.pritchard@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: OT: Homemade Lens hood...

 "Chris" == Christopher canon7dude@yahoo.com writes:

Chris> Any advice on making a lens hood on my own? I
Chris> understand that longer is better (except for too long
Chris> creates vignetting). I also have heard that Square or
Chris> tulip is better than round, though I have no idea why.
Chris> (seem to only see square on rangefinders for
Chris> viewfinder purposes I always thought.) If I make a
Chris> tulip shaped one what matters here? Deep or shallow
Chris> petals?

Here are my thoughts, Chris:

I think round ones are only popular so that they can be
screwed on, and no matter what position they land up in, they'll
work as designed.

I don't know why some of the more-positive bayonet lens
hoods are round; Nikon now produces square-ish bayonet lens hoods
for the likes of their 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S.

The only reason for tulip shape ones are to avoid
vignetting. I've only ever seen these used on zoom lenses, where
the wide-angle setting would cause issues.

Basically, if your film-format is square or rectangle, you
should consider a lens-hood that matches this shape. Doing this
will cut off the maximum of ambient/stray light, without
vignetting. As for the "spread" or angle of the sides, again -
it's dictated by vignetting considerations. For just about any
lens, you *could* use nearly a straight tube, but it would only
work passably for longer lenses (on a short one, a straight tube
would intrude on the angle-of-view pretty quickly, and would thus
have to be very short).

On most of my Nikon lenses, I use the hoods that Nikon
designed. It's just easier.

On my large-format camera, I use a Lee bellows-style hood,
which can be accordioned in and out. Usually, I adjust it
outward until I just begin to notice the onset of vignetting,
then I shorten it up a good bit, to guarantee I won't have
problems:

http://www.thefstop.com/equipment/new/lee/lee.html

If you are shooting on a tripod, there is always the
lazy-man's way: use your body or a hat, to block the sunlight
from directly falling onto the front element of the lens! This
works pretty well, but there can be a significant amount
(depending) of light from other directions, which can cause a
loss of image-contrast (veiling glare). Best is a hood that
excludes all light except for the direction of your image.


The Practical
=============

Having made exactly one lens-hood in my life, here is what
I did, and some thoughts you may find useful:

Althoug it was made for my large-format camera, the
princples should still help you. I began with some
shirt-cardboard.

I read up to find the angle-of-view for my lens (usually
published). I then cut a trapezoid of cardboard, which would
ultimately form one of four sides of my hood. The narrow end of
the trapezoid would be at the lens, and I somewhat arbitrarily
made it maybe 2 inches long. The wider (outer) end of the
cardboard was dictated by the angle-of-view of the lens*; in my
case (210mm on 4x5; maybe the same as a 65mm lens on a Nikon) the
outer length is perhaps 6inches, and the length of the side is
maybe 8inches.
(*please note: The above would work best for 35mm lenses.
My large-format has a published angle-of-view, but this covers
more than the film-area, permitting lens movements. I
arbitrarily made this hood such that it would reduce the
allowable movements, but not imtrude on the image when shooting
without movements. 35mm is simpler in this regard).

With 4 pieces of cardboard now cut, I sprayed one side
flat-black (to be the the inside). I then spaced the pieces
slightly apart, and used matte-black electrical tape to join each
side. The slight gap allows the hood to collapse flat for
storage.

The final touch was a table on a couple of the surfaces -
one showing depth-of-field for various f-stops and distances, and
another for exposure-factors for close-ups.

To hold the hood on, I included a couple of paper-clips in
the taping of the seams. Elastic bands loop through the
paper-clips, and I hooked the elastics over some handy posts on
the camera (this won't work exactly for a Nikon, but the idea of
paper-clips and elastics might be useful).

Good luck! Hope this helps,
-Gord

--
Gordon Pritchard, P.Eng. VA7GP
White Rock, B.C. Canada
mailto:gordon.pritchard@shaw.ca


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 
From: Abdon Gonzalez abdon@sillypages.com
Subject: Re: Homemade Lensshade...

Grab a rectangular-shaped plastic bottle, preferably one without a
built-in loop (like the one they build on gallons of milk for ease of
lift), preferably one with a wide throat. If you are careful you can cut
the head so it will match your lens size, and the bottom to expand as
much as the bottle will allow. Being plastic a bit of heat can be used
to tighten and shape things around, and then sanded down to its final
dimension. When satisfied with the shape and fit you can paint it black.

- Abdon

 Christopher wrote:
> Any advice on making a lens hood on my own? I understand that longer
> is better (except for too long creates vignetting). I also have heard
> that Square or tulip is better than round, though I have no idea why.
> (seem to only see square on rangefinders for viewfinder purposes I
> always thought.) If I make a tulip shaped one what matters here? Deep
> or shallow petals?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Chris


From russian camera user mailing list:
Date: 23 Oct 2003 
From: Leopoldo ARAUJO laraujo@wanadoo.fr
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: Russian Camera Users russiancamera-user@beststuff.com

Jay,

where do we get a scew-on wrist-starp?

Cheers

Leopoldo

Jay Y Javier a ,crit :
> Comrade Roman
>
> I have made such lens caps and hoods from paper and cardboard. The main material is thin cardboard. This is made stiff by gluing about 3 or 4 layers of paper ("papier-mach," style), or else by using gummed paper tape, similar to what you described. Ordinary adhesive tape isn't recommended since the adhesive they use tend to soften and run in time.
> Painting over the layers of paper makes the hood even more stable. The inner surfaces can be painted with flat black paint or else lined with fine black velvet or felt paper.
>
> For the Jupiter 9 (and maybe even the Jupiter 11), a straight tube whose diameter is enough to span the lens' front part, with the length of around 4 to 5 cms works well. For the 5cm Industar 22 or 50, a slightly flared one, about 3 cm long, works. It is possible to use a straight tube as well. The flare can be made by making several short cardboard tubes (3 or 4), with each one slightly larger than other, then stuck to each other. When assembled, the rear tube will be smaller, with a diameter which can fit over the Industar's front ring; the other end will be much larger.
>
> I have pictures of this at the "FED Zorkij Survival" site:
>
> http://www.fedka.com/~jay/page4.html
>
> There are three "hood-related" pictures on this page. One (second row of pictures from the bottom, rightmost frame) shows the Do-It-Yourself paper hoods attached to an Industar and on another Industar mounted on a Zorki. The second and third pictures, the ones found on the bottom of the page, compare two situations - one shot with the home-made hood, and one without. This proves the effectivity of hood.
>
> http://www.fedka.com/~jay/page9.html
>
> This is the second page of the "make your own lenscaps" section. The previous page describes the method of working with paper, as well as gluing layers. On the second page is a picture of several paper lens-hoods, attached on different lenses, including a J-9. The hoods are black, laminated by painting them with black spray paint or a combination of paint and lacquer.
>
> Jay


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com


 Rob K. wrote:
> Yes, you're right of course. I'm mixing things up.
> Any idea how close the image circle is to the frame corners on wide
> angle
> lenses ?

Depends on the lens. Different lenses have different diameter image
circles.

The best way is to look through the camera from the back with the
shutter open. You want a lens hood which is just outside the frame, so
you'd need to move something until you just see it and then back it off
a millimeter or two to know where the hood should cut off. Some
professional compendium hoods have sliding blades and you slide them
until you just see them and then back them off a little.

Bob



From russian camera user mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 
From: "Jay Y Javier" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com

Comrade Roman


I have made such lens caps and hoods from paper and cardboard. The main material is thin cardboard. This is made stiff by gluing about 3 or 4 layers of paper ("papier-mach," style), or else by using gummed paper tape, similar to what you described. Ordinary adhesive tape isn't recommended since the adhesive they use tend to soften and run in time.
Painting over the layers of paper makes the hood even more stable. The inner surfaces can be painted with flat black paint or else lined with fine black velvet or felt paper.

For the Jupiter 9 (and maybe even the Jupiter 11), a straight tube whose diameter is enough to span the lens' front part, with the length of around 4 to 5 cms works well. For the 5cm Industar 22 or 50, a slightly flared one, about 3 cm long, works. It is possible to use a straight tube as well. The flare can be made by making several short cardboard tubes (3 or 4), with each one slightly larger than other, then stuck to each other. When assembled, the rear tube will be smaller, with a diameter which can fit over the Industar's front ring; the other end will be much larger.

I have pictures of this at the "FED Zorkij Survival" site:

http://www.fedka.com/~jay/page4.html

There are three "hood-related" pictures on this page. One (second row of pictures from the bottom, rightmost frame) shows the Do-It-Yourself paper hoods attached to an Industar and on another Industar mounted on a Zorki. The second and third pictures, the ones found on the bottom of the page, compare two situations - one shot with the home-made hood, and one without. This proves the effectivity of hood.

http://www.fedka.com/~jay/page9.html

This is the second page of the "make your own lenscaps" section. The previous page describes the method of working with paper, as well as gluing layers. On the second page is a picture of several paper lens-hoods, attached on different lenses, including a J-9. The hoods are black, laminated by painting them with black spray paint or a combination of paint and lacquer.

Jay

russiancamera-user@beststuff.com wrote:

>Comrades,
>
>in the recent days I am tweaking with tape and carton paper to build some
>lens hoods and covers (oddly, european vitamine pill boxes and film cans
>don't fit my SovKams. #-).
>
>I developed a method by using carton and covering it with either self
>adhesive tape (Tesa Krepp.. http://www.tesa.de/images/DEU/sol/7172.jpg
> I can build submarines and spacecrafts from it. ;-) or wet adhesive paper
>tape (Nassklebeband), fitting a black paper on the inner surface. I prefer
>the latter one, for the more classic and rough look. Pics to follow.
>
>One question - how do I determine the optimum length of a lens hood?
>Checking it with ground glass for vignetting seems a bit rough, I prefer to
>use my pencil and rules.. ;-)
>
>I guess I need the image angle of the given focal length - but from which
>point do I set it?
>
>Gruss, Roman



From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 
From: "bennydrinnon" bennydrinnon@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lens coating

--- In camera-fix@yahoogroups.com, "Max" maxhert@y... wrote:
> I know this subject has been covered here before. But I'm curious
> about the antireflex coatings that optical stores apply to
> prescription glasses. Could I just take all the elements of an old
> prewar lens and get them treated?. I know some people prefer using
> these uncoated, with a good shade, but I have a couple that are
> exceptionally reflective. One three element 105/3.5 Zeiss Nettar lens
> I have has so bad inner reflections you almost can't see the leaf
> shutter in open daylight (the glass looks just gray when light is
> shone onto it). The lens has extremely low contrast, and it hurts the
> sharpness perception too, since detail si there but so flat it gets
> lost. I'm sure that the same pieces of glass with an antireflective
> treatment would produce much more pleasant pictures. Obviously this
> being a cheap lens,'I'd be very interest in making such an experiment
> depending on the cost. Any ideas?

A lens hood would help, and would cost less than spending money
having the lens coated. Especially if you tried making your own lens
hood. Lens hoods have been made from plastic bottles with the inside
painted black, or even from funnels. - Ed Romney's pal



From minolta manual camera list:
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 
From: Louis Faiella louisx@optonline.net
Subject: RE: Re: UV Filters? 
Hi 

This brings up a subject that I wanted to explore. 
We all have lost lens caps or are in need of spares. I found that some 
plastic food can covers that come with some products are a good source 
of lens covers. 
I used one from a baking soda can (for a 200mm) lens. and a larger 
one(from cocoa) for a (500mm) lens. Unfortunately these lenses are not 
marked as to the actual diameter. 
I would love to find some for 52mm; 55mm; 62mm etc diameters. 

Do you have any ideas???? 

LOU 


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 
From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz
Subject: Re: Homemade Lens hood...

> I also have heard that Square or tulip is better than
> round, though I have no idea why.

The best shade is one which provides shade right to the edge of the
image frame, which happens to be rectangular. Petal shades come about
when a rectangular shape is cut out of a circular cone-shaped hood,
the corners are cut away more to allow illumination to the corner of
the picture.

Tulip and rectangular hoods need to be mounted straight otherwise
vignetting will result. Bayonet hoods are the best way for mounting
these hoods straight. With slip-on or snap-on hoods, it would be too
easy to mount a rectangular hood crooked, same with screw-in hoods.
These hoods are all circular so it does not matter which way they fit.
Also, circular hoods are often used so they can be fit around the lens
reversed for storage.



From: WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DV1) (USA) [david.r.williams2@jsc.nasa.gov] 
Sent: Tue 2/24/2004
To: 'hasselblad@kelvin.net' 
Subject: RE: [HUG] Lee Filters for Hasselblad lenses

I use Lee Hoods because there is nothing out there that extends/shades a
wide angle lens to the degree that the Wide Angle Lee Hood does. I have the
Standard Hood and the Wide Hood. I use Tiffen Glass and Lee Glass 4x4
filters along with some Lee 4x4 and 4x6 resin filters. I use the hoods on my
Nikon "S" lenses 17-35, 28-70, 80-200 along with my Hasselblad/Zeiss
903SWC/38mm, 60CFI, 100CFI and 180CFE. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brick [mailto:jbrick@elesys.net]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Lee Filters for Hasselblad lenses


Daniel ROCHA wrote:
>Karen Nakamura mail@gpsy.com wrote:
> > The Lindahl compedium shade mounts on the outside and is compatible
> > with 4x4 resin filters...
>
>I have never heard about this brand !


Lindahl is the company that makes the stick-on dark slide holders for the
back of your Hasselblad film backs. They are famous for their shades,
masks, compendiums, etc.

Jim


From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: 82mm Lens Hood for Old Vivitar 20/3.8
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004


Greg Lovern gregl@gregl.net wrote:
> I have an old Vivitar 20/3.8, made by Kiron probably in the early
> 1970's.
> I'd like to get a lens hood for it without spending a lot of money.
>
> Its filter size is 82mm. I also want to keep a UV filter on it.

Americal Eagle on Ebay sells a 82mm wide angle hood for about $8. I'm not
sure it's wide enough for a 20mm but it's also only $8 so if you need to
file it a little. Pentax sells an 82mm square hood for it's 6x7 camera.
That should definetly be wide enough but it's closer to $60.

Nick



From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 27 Nov 2003 
Subject: Re: Flare: Leica Summicron R and Pentax Limited Lenses

>Subject: Flare: Leica Summicron R and Pentax Limited Lenses
>From: "Jeremy" jeremy@nospam.thanks.com
>Date: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 
>
>Mike Johnston, in one of his columns on the Luminous Landscape web site,
>debunks some flare myths as they pertain to the Leica Summicron R lens:
>
>"Here are three of the toughest seat-of-the-pants trials for flare that I
>routinely perform on an unfamiliar lens to get a basic idea of how it
>handles flare:
>
>1. The obvious one is the into-the-sun test. With sunlight directly shining
>on the front element of the lens, at a small aperture, check for ghosting or
>shaped areas of veiling glare. This is probably the major failing of the
>otherwise excellent Leica 50mm Summicron-M, which flares too readily in this
>kind of situation.
>
>2. A tougher test even for a good lens is the "window test." In an interior,
>with the lens close to open, place a large, much brighter area such as a big
>outdoor window just out of the lens's field of view. One of the most
>flare-resistant lenses I ever tried, the 35mm Leica Summicron-R, could make
>pictures of the sun with remarkably little loss of image quality, yet it
>could be undone at f/4 with the window test.
>
>3. The "squirrel on a branch" test. Make a photograph of something slight or
>thin, but that contains detail, against a bright sky background, with no
>light sources or directly-impinging light rays on the front element, and see
>how much contrast loss there is, especially at the boundaries. A bird or a
>squirrel on the branch of a tree makes a good test subject, because you can
>compare the subtle loss of contrast in the branch with the better-protected
>trunk of the tree, which will show less flare loss. The Pentax 43mm Limited
>was the best lens I ever encountered at this test. The superb flare control
>of this lens probably partially accounts for its amazing ability to record
>microdetail."
>
>Link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml
>
>Even Erwin Puts admits that "image quality falls off towards the corners."
>If image quality across the whole negative is really crucial, he recommends
>that the Macro-Elmarit 60mm f/2.8 be used instead.
>
>With regard to flare, Puts admits its presence, in a rather obsure way:
>
>"A bit typical for the Summicron design is the occurrence of a hazy patch of
>light in the center of an image in situations where a large and bright
>background is part of the scene and can act as a light box."
>
>A "small patch of light?" Translation="Don't shoot into the sun or you'll
>get flare" Is that what he is trying to say?
>
>He even advises how to deal with this: "In this situation a small change of
>position can correct this phenomenon."
>
>I suppose that one does not speak of things like flare when describing
>$1000.00 normal lenses, eh? Call it a "phenomenon" -- that sounds better.
>Ordinary mortals have lenses that exhibit flare. Leica exhibits a
>"phenomenon . . . "
>
>The solution is identical, whether one is shooting with the Summicron or the
>lowly Jupiter: change your position, so as not to shoot directly into bright
>light.
>
>Sorry, but I just couldn't resist posting this . . .

Two ways of avoiding flare:

A) Block it w. your hand or something else

B) Change camera's position relative to the light source so its not a factor

C) Move the light source so it doesn't do this any more

D) Use a Zeiss T* coated or a Pentax SMC coated lens

E) Stop worrying about flare and use it when it works w/ an image and blcok it
by any of the above means when it doesn't work for an image.

Thanks for the URL/quotes, Jeremy.

Regards,

Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm


From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Flare: body flare or lens flare?
Date: 29 Nov 2003 

yes, your memory is excellent ;-) the
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/coatings.html pages cite laboratory tests with
identical lenses carefully made to be identical, except some were
uncoated, others coated, others multicoated. These test lenses shocked the
laboratory lens testers by highlighting that multicoating was a lot less
of an impact than the ads would suggest. They concluded that the main
benefit of multicoating was improved light transmission (T-stops) rather
than in improving ghost performance or better contrast.

an interesting post has shown that lens flare is often body flare, cited
on the mf/flare.html pages; bob shell had similar experiences with using
the same medium format kiev lenses on a kiev body (much flare) and the
same lens on an adapter and mamiya body (much less flare). Body flare, and
flare from rear of the lens hardware/mounts, can be modified by users with
a bit of flat black paint (as with kiev kits and so on to do this ;-)

IIRC, it was December 1973 Pop Photo that has the blurbs about the Pentax
SMC lenses in older mounts, as part of their flare tests of many lenses (I
have cited here in threads in NG) see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/flare1.txt
flare2.txt etc. They discovered the new SMC elements in older mounting
stock when trying to figure out why the older lenses scored so well on
flare %. At least it showed their testing methods were working well ;-)

Look inside your lenses against a white light. Do you see bits of black
dust in them? That dust is probably from the flat black coating applied to
the inner mechanics and edges of lens elements etc. to reduce flare, now
wearing off from focusing movements and vibration etc. ;-) Ooops! ;-)

the biggest improvements in some of the hasselblad zeiss lenses recently
has not been better optical design (the same used), or better coatings
(same again), but in more attention to minimizing flare within the lens
including better baffling etc. to reduce light bouncing around flare
sources...

In short, I think really bad flare is often body related flare, not lens
flare as often claimed. Most poor lens flare is probably due to inadequate
or marginal baffling and lens blackening, rather than relatively minor
differences in coatings. The benefits of multicoating are relatively
marginal, even for ghosting and veiling glare reduction, if the other
elements of flare control in the camera lens and body are well attended
too.

This is yet another experiment I want to make someday, using various T4/TX
mount adapters and camera bodies, and a bright light source around a flat
black velvet "black hole". My bet is that the same interchangeable Tmount
and T4/TX mount lenses will exhibit different flare patterns on different
bodies, highlighting that body flare is a lot more of a problem than lens
flare ;-)

The same test could be done within a lens line, for example, a
nikon EM, FG, F, F2, Nikkormat, Nikkormat-EL... series, as well as the
chinese copy nikon mounts and cosina nikon f10 and so on. Here again, my
bet is that camera body flare would be a lot more of a variable than lens
flare with most good lenses anyway ;-)

if true, this could be useful news; it is a lot easier to trade up (or
down) a camera body to get less camera body flare, than to trade up all
your lenses for a better flare performance. In some cases (kiev 88 flare
kits), the users may be able to identify sources of flare at lens rear
etc. and take minor cost efforts (flat black paint) to greatly reduce
flare effects in their photos ;-) (see mf/black.html on black paint
sources)...

grins bobm


From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Nov 2003 
Subject: Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh


Hi Bob :-):

>Subject: Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
>From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
>Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2003 
>
>yes, good idea, but hard to do in practice. Most 50mm lenses are setup and
>tested/aligned for infinity focus. The markings may or may not be accurate
>at 4 or 6 or 10 feet. Focusing by eye adds a subjective factor, which may
>not be repeatable, which could be more of an error source than the
>differences between many lenses.

Why not try it anyway, or if you want to be extra careful/anal, like me;-), use
a measuring tape from the film plane index mark on the camera to the subject
him/herself. And/or just use the 4-5 feet test as a test of bokeh rather than
ultimate subject sharpness. People/portraits tend to be done more in this range
than at infinity, and even though I know there are people who care for nothing
else other than infinity performance (landscape and astronomica/sky/weather
usages), a majority of people still shoot people pictures/portraits in this
closer range and I feel it would be a mistake to forego this distance just
because of difficulty in focusing. Perhaps there is some kind of eyepiece
magnifier that would allow you more precise focusing if you must know sharpness
down to the nth degree at this range in addition to portrait background bokeh
effects. But "don't get your knickers in a twist" about ultimate sharpness, I'd
rather see even slight focusing errors than no portrait/bokeh test in this
important 4-5 foot range.

>IIRC, a recent poster (Brian#### ?) noted that most lenses are not
>optimized for foreground bokeh but background bokeh, so perhaps a set of
>photos could be done to highlight background bokeh effects, which are more
>often an issue in any case?

Sounds fair enough, though including something out of focus in the foreground
is not really a big deal if both the tree branches in the foreground and the
tripod is steady which should be the case so long as there are no earthquakes
about ;-). I really don't think that including both foreground and background
bokeh elements in the same shot is such a big deal because once you've placed
the subject and positioned the camera to record it and the background and the
foreground leaves or whatever, the test conditions are set and wont have to be
changed from shot to shot.

>I tried to provide some foreground highlight/bokeh effects in my medium
>format blind lens tests by positioning a fountain in bright sunlight
>during the test shots in the foreground, to the side. See the sample photo
>at top of http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindtest.html for layout. But like my
>handholding test, this part of the experiment was a disappointment.

Why do you consider it a disappointment?

>Another test I'd like to run is Roger Hicks flare test - using branches or
>a set of power lines to see how well the lens splits bright and dark
>areas.
>

Sounds good. Is that test in Roger's book "35mm Panorama" or in some other
book?

>The problem with too many tests is that you end up with a very complex and
>intimidating test protocol ;-(

I agree, but what I suggested above is not as hard as you might think once all
elements are set in place. The foreground/background test would be at a common
near or at wide open aperture on all lenses (if all lenses were 1.4s you could
do the test at 1.4, if there is a mix of 1.4s and 1.8s and/or f/2s you could do
the test w/ all of them at f/2). I am not really asking for a full range of
bokeh f/stops just at wide open (or near there, depending on your wide open
apertures of your various lenses as just mentioned). If you feel inclined to do
f/2.8, f/4, and/or f/5.6 bokeh shots that would be your decision, but the bokeh
tests do not have to be sharpness tests too covering the whole range of
f/stops, neither do they even have to be of the same subject (or focusing
distance, since all bokeh at infinity is virtually the same ;-)) as your
sharpness tests.

You also end up burning a LOT of film, as
>you need 6 to 12 or more sets of each slide shot to be able to mail some
>out, esp. as some folks hang on to them to show their photo club friends
>or forget to return them ;-(

I empathize with your plight here, but the only way to get a good range of
opinions is to show many people. Perhpas you know enough photographers and/or
photographers who know photographers so the slides would either never have to
leave your house/whatever and/or you could take it with you to some nearby
photogrphers/friends residence so you can be assured of getting your prints
back before you leave. The other alternative is to both be a trusting soul and
to find people who will be trustable so you don't have the problem of
non-returns and/or tellthem that only they can see it and not their photo
clubs/whatever so there's no inbetween places/venues for the slides to get lost
at...

>Unfortunately, I agree with you that this
>can't be done well on a monitor from film scans, so has to be the original
>slide film under study. ;-)
>
>regards bobm
>--

Sad, but true ;-).

I'm sure you already have a list of testers filled but if you don't, you might
want to add me to your list as I'd love to try my hand/eye at various brands'
lens' sharpness/bokeh signatures. Either way, let me/us know the results as I'd
love to know. And possibly post alink, if we can't see them in person, at least
guessing on the web may not be an accurate representation but at least it
should be fun ;-).

Regards/Happy Thanksgiving,

Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm



From: "Jeremy" jeremy@nospam.thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Flare: Leica Summicron R and Pentax Limited Lenses
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 

Mike Johnston, in one of his columns on the Luminous Landscape web site,
debunks some flare myths as they pertain to the Leica Summicron R lens:

"Here are three of the toughest seat-of-the-pants trials for flare that I
routinely perform on an unfamiliar lens to get a basic idea of how it
handles flare:

1. The obvious one is the into-the-sun test. With sunlight directly shining
on the front element of the lens, at a small aperture, check for ghosting or
shaped areas of veiling glare. This is probably the major failing of the
otherwise excellent Leica 50mm Summicron-M, which flares too readily in this
kind of situation.

2. A tougher test even for a good lens is the "window test." In an interior,
with the lens close to open, place a large, much brighter area such as a big
outdoor window just out of the lens's field of view. One of the most
flare-resistant lenses I ever tried, the 35mm Leica Summicron-R, could make
pictures of the sun with remarkably little loss of image quality, yet it
could be undone at f/4 with the window test.

3. The "squirrel on a branch" test. Make a photograph of something slight or
thin, but that contains detail, against a bright sky background, with no
light sources or directly-impinging light rays on the front element, and see
how much contrast loss there is, especially at the boundaries. A bird or a
squirrel on the branch of a tree makes a good test subject, because you can
compare the subtle loss of contrast in the branch with the better-protected
trunk of the tree, which will show less flare loss. The Pentax 43mm Limited
was the best lens I ever encountered at this test. The superb flare control
of this lens probably partially accounts for its amazing ability to record
microdetail."

Link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml

Even Erwin Puts admits that "image quality falls off towards the corners."
If image quality across the whole negative is really crucial, he recommends
that the Macro-Elmarit 60mm f/2.8 be used instead.

With regard to flare, Puts admits its presence, in a rather obsure way:

"A bit typical for the Summicron design is the occurrence of a hazy patch of
light in the center of an image in situations where a large and bright
background is part of the scene and can act as a light box."

A "small patch of light?" Translation="Don't shoot into the sun or you'll
get flare" Is that what he is trying to say?

He even advises how to deal with this: "In this situation a small change of
position can correct this phenomenon."

I suppose that one does not speak of things like flare when describing
$1000.00 normal lenses, eh? Call it a "phenomenon" -- that sounds better.
Ordinary mortals have lenses that exhibit flare. Leica exhibits a
"phenomenon . . . "

The solution is identical, whether one is shooting with the Summicron or the
lowly Jupiter: change your position, so as not to shoot directly into bright
light.

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist posting this . .


From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: bellows lens hood
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 

"Lourens Smak" smak@wanadoo.nl wrote ...
> "Don" nospamdonbo@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Can you use a bellows lens hood that is sometimes used on medium format
> > cameras like Mamiya on a 35 mm camera? I like the idea of a collapsible
> > bellows hood but was wondering if anyone ever used one on 35 mm camera.
>
> There's a modular system from Lee Filters that might interest you. I
> think they even have a 2:3 rectangular one. It uses adapter rings so you
> can use it on all your lenses. (or on both 35mm and 6x6 for example)
>
> Lourens

I use Lee filters and bellows hoods on both 35mm and MF, and they work very
well.

Cokin also makes a 35mm sized bellows hood, for both their A and P systems,
and there are some third party hoods to fit the Cokin P adapter. There are
probably others too: the square filter systems are definitely the place to
look, as getting adapters to fit different lenses is then easy.

Peter


From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens caps ?
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 

Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote:
> aldenphoto@aol.com (Ken Smith) wrote:
> > I have a red peanut butter cap on my Fuji 6x9. Very hard plastic, perfect
> > fit. The grocery store is loaded with caps. Be sure to take your lens with
> > you, and for some reason they don't like you taking pictures there, so be
> > sneaky if you are doing a Winogrand on the side.
> >
> > Ken Smith
>
> And should there be plasticisers in that cap that migrate to the glass
> on your lens be prepared to throw the lens away. But you did save $7.00
> to $13.00 ($13.00 is list price for a 120mm lens cap).

Got any authoritative sources concerning this issue? What are these
plasticisers and how long can a lens survive them. Are they anything like
the plastic storage/contact sheet holders that were used for film in the
sixties?



Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 
From: "Rob K." rob.keppens@pandora.be
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: J-9 and flare
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@beststuff.com

Hi Peter,

Yes it's true, Baierfoto.de gave the same data (for some reason this website
is off-line for the moment).
However, with the Jupiter lenses it's easy to see by yourself (at least for
the rear element). If you close the iris to f22 and then look at the rear
element you see in case of a J-8 atmost 3 reflections, 2 big ones from the
air-glass transition and a small one from the cemented glass-glass
transition. In case of the J-3 and the J-9 there are 4 reflections (2 big
and 2 small ones). The reflections are easier to spot than with
Industar/Tessar/Elmar lenses.

More info about those reflections can be found at
http://idccdata.members.easyspace.com/ReflectionTest/reflection.htm


And also there are some J-12's (Kiev made ?) that have a smaller rear-lens
than the prewar Biogon (2.8/35).

Gruss Rob



From: "AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wanted: Schneider lens cap 58mm
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004

> I have a Schneider 240 that has no lens cap for the back element, which
> is a major hassle. Does anyone have a spare cap? It appears to be 58mm.

B&H; photo/video has 'm for $5.95 made by Kaiser. But you MUST order them at
TWO mm larger than your caliper reading. The reason is that the size that stated on
the cap, same as stated on the website, is the exact same size as the lens rim itself
which is too small to fit "around" the rim. I know because I ordered them at my
caliper reading, then returned them and decided to get them @ two mm bigger and
it worked perfectly, nice and snug. Cheap shipping from B&H; too.

Kaiser needs to get it right because it was really frustrating for the time wasted
and resulting telephone work.

Alex




End of Page