Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Charming comment, thank you...

 

Ah. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, lct, but due apologies if you took offence.

 

I've never done a test such as you illustrated but in the near-40 years I've been shooting Ms the only time I've ever seen anything close to flare that bad was with a '54 Summaron-M which needed treatment for haze in the optics. Do you know whether your 'thin' was / is so affected? After all the lens was around 30 years old when the test shots were taken. Perhaps it coould do with a strip'n'clean?

 

Admittedly my own snaps rarely have a strong light source actually within the image area shining directly down the barrel of the lens and I always use a 'hood so light-sources outwith the image area don't cause me problems - at least not with the particular 90 which I have. Perhaps I'm just lucky.

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

picked up a used hood 12575 for this at large NYC retailer

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The low light capability of the M10 and this lens is mind bogging.  I have a Canon 1dxmkii and assorted L lenses and I don't recall similar performance

 

The attached is at 6400 iso, f2.8, 1/60

 

At $310 this lens was more than a bargain!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by richardlipow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] I've never done a test such as you illustrated but in the near-40 years I've been shooting Ms the only time I've ever seen anything close to flare that bad was with a '54 Summaron-M which needed treatment for haze in the optics. Do you know whether your 'thin' was / is so affected? After all the lens was around 30 years old when the test shots were taken. Perhaps it coould do with a strip'n'clean? [...]

 

Well Pip i've been shooting this lens since the eighties when i bought it new. Its glass was clean and is still so now. I don't want to sound disrespectful in any way and i don't come here to bash my own lenses needless to say but this flare issue is well known since that era, at least by me and one reviewer (https://tinyurl.com/y7lep8bh). Using a good hood like the Leica 12575 i bought for the T-E is a (partial) solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Pip i've been shooting this lens since the eighties when i bought it new. Its glass was clean and is still so now. I don't want to sound disrespectful in any way and i don't come here to bash my own lenses needless to say but this flare issue is well known since that era, at least by me and one reviewer (https://tinyurl.com/y7lep8bh). Using a good hood like the Leica 12575 i bought for the T-E is a (partial) solution.

I really don't wish to be disrespectful either, lct, and your lens has obviously been well cared for......so in the interests of science;

 

As it happens at the moment I'm in the studio shooting lots of artefacts which require strong side-light coupled with a strong back light so took a few minutes off to try a couple of experiments with the 90 and a couple of other lenses. With a back-light comprising a 450 joule head at full whack fitted with a 60cm x 60 cm softbox set approx 1 metre from the camera and pointing straight at the lens but JUST out of crop there is, indeed, rather a lot of flare. Flag it just off hitting the front element and there is absolutely none. Mind you; there is also flare with the other lenses I tried; just not quite so noticeable.

 

Taking a fair bit of care at the shooting stage has obviously done the trick for me over the years. I suppose I'm fortunate that I don't ever shoot dreamy sunsets...

 

:)

 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve said this before and I will say it again. If you shoot into a light source you deserve everything you get.

All this business about flare is caused by the photographer and not the lens.

 

It's certainly true that W. Eugene Smith "deserved everything he got" from shooting into the light - which is to say: a permanent place in the annals of photography, and pictures that are remembered 50, 60, 70 years after they were made (and will be remembered and studied 150 years after they were made.)

 

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e0/0d/55/e00d55073f20634d0632bf09f2f3fa18.jpg

http://www.documentingmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/williameugenesmith1971minamata.jpg

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/01_05897910.jpg?quality=85&w=439

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K14ZLI-DWjw/UYnuUkGa6AI/AAAAAAAAAjQ/PDjc5ya-SxU/s640/wes6.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/e2/b4/50/e2b450629d5edd4951db24e28f38f363--social-photography-photography-portraits.jpg

http://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00170lld356FFgneECfDrCWvaHBOc16K/w.-eugene-smith-schweitzer-with-lamp-at-his-desk.jpg

 

It is probably not - wise - to make a blanket criticism of a technique that can get one into museums' permanent collections, and the history (or other) books. ;)

 

That being said, the 90TE2 can certainly handle many types of dramatic lighting....one just has to be aware of its propensities

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

And I'm always - amused - by comments that it is not sharp wide-open and/or close up....

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to put in a good word for the 11250 rubber hood: makes the lens so compact and handy! I have the 12575 as well (from a mint 1961 Emar 135mm), but it is very clunky by comparison.

 

Looking at the baffles of the 90 T-E thin, they are extensive, but certainly there is a lot of reflection off the top of each baffle. I wonder if a better light absorbent coating would help much?

 

Mine is a late maple-syrup version, no signs of rear element haze thus far...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A we really going to go down the shoot into the light discussion again? Shooting into the light opens up the fantastic opportunities provided by lens flare, which when used well (in my case pure chance) can turn a good composition into a great photo.

 

Life would be boring if everything was perfect. Even more boring if it was all the same and perfect. Yuk.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to put in a good word for the 11250 rubber hood: makes the lens so compact and handy! I have the 12575 as well (from a mint 1961 Emar 135mm), but it is very clunky by comparison.

Looking at the baffles of the 90 T-E thin, they are extensive, but certainly there is a lot of reflection off the top of each baffle. I wonder if a better light absorbent coating would help much? [...]

 

No idea but my Elmar-C 90/4 is less prone to flare when strong light sources are into the frame. Now it has the same problem as the T-E when same light sources are just outside the frame. Only solution i know of is a good hood, i.e. more effective than the convenient Leitz rubber hood i'm afraid. But even then using a hat or a hand to make some more shade may be useful or even obligatory. More radical solution, get a cheaper Rokkor-M 90/4 for Minolta CLE (not CL) you will hardly find a better 90 this size besides the Macro-Elmar 90/4. But none of them does f/2.8 and this is another story.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea but my Elmar-C 90/4 is less prone to flare when strong light sources are into the frame. Now it has the same problem as the T-E when same light sources are just outside the frame. Only solution i know of is a good hood, i.e. more effective than the convenient Leitz rubber hood i'm afraid. But even then using a hat or a hand to make some more shade may be useful or even obligatory. More radical solution, get a cheaper Rokkor-M 90/4 for Minolta CLE (not CL) you will hardly find a better 90 this size besides the Macro-Elmar 90/4. But none of them does f/2.8 and this is another story.

 

 

Thanks lct. I'm really happy with my T-E 90 (with 11250), and I have made many pictures I like with it and it is a steadfast part of my travel kit. The M-E 90 would be nice, but a stop slower and a lot of money to change over, I've thought about it a few times, but always just decided to stay with the T-E. Would probably put the 11250 on the M-E if I ever buy one  :)

 

Isola Bella

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M3, 90mm Tele-Elmarit 'thin', Kodak Ektar 100

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...