Hi Andre: It is interesting what you say about the K35 f3.5 lens. I have actually acquired one recently in a like new condition. I used it last weekend and tested it for ghosting pointing the upper frame corner at the rather brilliant sun (the snow and ice desert of the completely frozen Georgian Bay) and sure enough a small circular ghost does appear in the lower left corner. That is a very small ghost, but nevertheless it is there. The performance is still very good indeed compared to other well known lenses which are low in flare and ghosting like my Nikkor 20 mm f:3.5 which displays a somewhat larger and more disturbing ghost similarly positioned within the frame. My K50 f:1.4 displayed a significant "ankh-like" ghost under the same conditions - somewhat reminiscent of my Nikkor 50 mm f:1.4. Still the Pentax ghosting was less disturbing in the viewfinder that the Nikkor. I will look carefully at the negatives to see if this has more to do with the lens or the viewfinder. For a camera I used the newly acquired ME Super from Tom.
Cheers, - Andrew. -----Original Message----- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 13, 2003 12:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is flare bad? >*IF* you have some authority which asserts this to be true and >describes the mechanism by which this raised "level of light scatter" >is reduced by coatings, well then, I and others would like to see it. The Hasselblad Manual is one of the best book on photography I have found (with the Ilford Manual of Photography. It says (third ed. p 177): "When light hits a non-coated glass surface, about 5% is reflected..." etc. We already know the rest of this paragraph as Pentax in their multi-coating publicity repeated it many times. More interesting is what follows. "Of even more concern than the loss of light is what happens to the reflected light. After being reflected, it probably reaches another lens surface and is reflected back to another lens or part of the lens mount. The reflected light causes flare -- a haze over the image which reduces its contrast. A thin coating over the lens surface reduces light reflection..." and it goes on to multi-coating with which "light transmission is increased and the reduction in flare can be significant." >In my photos, the primary source of "flair" is reflections producing >ghosts. Even the best multi-coated lenses have some flair of this type >in night shots with bright street lights. The K 35/3.5 (and the Takumar version) is said to be totally ghost-free. A test (Mod or Pop Ph) revealed that shooting directly at the sun with it, it's not possible to see any ghost wherever you put the sun in the frame. I tried it and it's true. I have not tried it with multiple night spots but it should respond the same way. This could be the only lens to performs like that though. >The second largest source of "flair" I >experience is in the emulsion itself. > >For an example of both, see: http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzyHLn-p12195512 What (or where) is the "emulsion flare" in this nice night shot, Bob? Cheers, Andre --
