Try this for flare control, just about a worst case scenario, with definite flare, but still well controlled:
http://static.flickr.com/104/273662880_843634c70a_b.jpg Note it's a bit big (Direct link for Flickr-haters) -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: > No, it's not, but I'm in the minority on this list. There are only two > others here that I know of who feel similarly. > > The issue about the hood can be easily corrected, and that may help with > the flare issues I encountered. Paul's pic is not a particularly good > example (IMO) of a flare-producing situation. > > I suspect you'll find the lens to be acceptable .... but I can't gush over > it as some others have. > > Shel > > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: John Whittingham > > > >>Not exactly a glowing recommendation Shel. The trouble is it's difficult > > to > >>find a lens in this FL range that doesn't have some kind of issues with > > it, > >>be it Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc, prime or zoom. Now > > if > >>the Tamron 17-35 XR Di were a bit wider at the short end I might well be >>tempted. >> >>John >> >>---------- Original Message ----------- >>From: "Shel Belinkoff" > > >>>While I liked the lens, and found it to be a nice "walking around" >>>lens, I wasn't quite satisfied with it for critical work and fine >>>details. The standard hood is, imo, inadequate, and the lens is >>>prone to flare and purple fringing in some situations. I actually >>>used two samples, one briefly and another for more than a month, got >>>the fringing with both of them. I didn't like the way it >>>"tromboned" but soon learned to accept that aspect of it. Overall, >>> I think it's fine for most work, but it would not be my first >>>choice for a lot of photography that I do. I'd consider buying one >>>if the price were right now that I know its limitations, strengths, and >>>weaknesses. On a scale of 100 I'd rate it about 80. > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
