I understand what you're saying, and your little test makes sense. In the past I've done similar tests to test the viability of different lens hoods, and i was thinking of what hood might work better on the 16-45. Getting away from the tulip hood might be helpful, and perhaps some 67mm threaded metal hoods might work, such as the hood from a A*85/1.4, or some hoods designed for 6x7 lenses. I've always tried to use the deepest or tightest hoods I could find to reduce the possibility of such things happening. For example, on my A*200/2.8 I'd use a hood like the Heliopan I sold you and than add a certain Nikon hood to the front of that - just an example. Or, on the 77mm I use a Takumar hood from the Super Tak 135/3.5, which also works well on the A50/1.4. For my 35mm lenses on the DS I've been using hoods that were designed for lenses around the 105mm focal length, and I've really gone tight with the hood I'm using on the K18/3.5. So, it's possible that a better hood will solve or reduce the problem.
Before getting Patsy's lens to try, I asked the list about hoods for the 16-45 and everyone who replied said the standard hood was best. I'm no longer convinced that's the case - in fact, I was skeptical from the beginning. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Date: 6/16/2006 3:07:02 PM > Subject: Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens] > > Hello Shel, > > Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for > flare. It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the > sun in the image. As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it > to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the > frame. If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare > would go away. So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that > would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help > enough. > > Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing. On this lens, it > would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just > outside it. It can be made to flare just about as easily as the > 16-45, but at a different angle. > > The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so > the flare was mostly absent. Your shot has the sun just outside the > frame and so it really showed. > > Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot > where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax > lens do just about the same thing. That is probably why I haven't > noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a > movement to fix the problem. > > Thoughts? > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Bruce Dayton > > >> I'm curious if you had a filter on the lens for the awful flare > >> version. I know the shot you took of me had a filter on it albeit an > >> SMC filter. > >> > >> I have never seen flare like the awful on from my 16-45 - but if I > >> think flare could be an issue, I always take of the filter. Just > >> curious. I may have to go out and see if I can get mine to flare that > >> badly. > > >> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/bruceflare.jpg > >> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/awfulflare.jpg > >> > >> SB> Shel > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
