Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 16mm f/3.5 versions. L39(UV) and NEUTRAL filter positions.

Subject: Re: [OM] 16mm f/3.5 versions. L39(UV) and NEUTRAL filter positions.
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:43:16 -0700
Dave B. asks:

<< Why did the fisheyes have n[o] internal UV filter by default (ie you
can't opt out of it and have NO Filter) in the first place? Because of
better meter accuracy? >>

The filter is part of the optical design, just like with many
catadioptric lenses.

<< What is the NEUTRAL filter? Surely they dont mean a neutral density;
that would be pointless unless you could also have a NO FILTER position
too. Or is the NEUTRAL position itself just a NO FILTER position? >>

One that imparts no effect.  It is the one that has to be in the optical
path if no others are used. Minolta uses a Neutral filter (as labeled)
in their 500mm f/8 AF Reflex, for example.

Perhaps the change from UV to Neutral came about when film manufacturers
started putting UV inhibiting layers in film emulsions.  Begs the
question of why anyone would want to add a UV filter.

Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV




< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz