Tom Scales wrote:
<< Very nice. Personally, I like the Silvernose lenses. Heck, I'm not good
enough a photographer to worry about flare <g> and I think the problem is
overrated. >>
The 16/3.5 is a mega-cute lens. I was just commenting that the silver nose is
not right on the end of the nose, but a little way back from the end (about
5mm), just in front of the aperture ring, and I guessed that with this lens
it may have been put back a bit because of the protruding front element and
the 180 degree angle of view, in case it caused stray reflections.
I wonder if Olympus abandoned silvernoses because of that possibility in
general - I don't know. Or more likely it was considered an unnecessary cost,
or just an arbitrary-ish change in cosmetic design.
Joh Lind wrote:
<< I've used them under a very wide range of lighting conditions and never
noted any flare problem from the silver nose. >>
OK. I'll bow to your wider OM experience on this, John!
[Another digression: my 50/1.8s and 28/2.8 are differently constructed at the
bayonet end, with a silver tail if you like (or bum). Most lenses have that
slightly matt silver finish around the outside of the mounting ring, but on
these two, the backmost part is a gleaming silver ring about 1mm thick.]
Dave Bellamy.
http://members.aol.com/synthchap/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|