Have you considered buying Mrs Phill one for her birthday?



Andrew

This is exactly what I did with my new Dell 2209WA monitor after reading your advice on this in a previous post. It worked well for me.

Thanks
Andrew

I think that's spot on. It's probably also true to say that just about all 50's are better than any of the photos that I'm likely to take with them.

FWIW, I bought the Rikenon f1.7 off Ebay in the last couple of days for £7.19!!! It came with a Nikon L37 filter, a polarizing filter and a rubber lens hood. Effectively, I got the lens for free - which is nice, considering that the glass is clean.

The only reason I bid on the f1.7 was because it is multi-coated and the f2 is only single coated - so maybe there'll be less flare. This could, though, be a theoretical rather than a real advantage - as I only remember one of the many hundreds of shots I've taken with the Rikenon f2 (using film) having noticeable flare.

Andrew

There have been least three ranges of Rikenon lenses over time. I understand that the XR was the first, the 'P' program range (with the pin that makes the lens hard/impossible to remove from a Pentax DSLR) was the last. There is also one in between that doesn't have either "XR" or "P" on the lens. Some Rikenon lenses are rumoured to have been made by Tomioka, but there are also rumours about Cosina, Pentax and others. One of the f2 50's is rumoured to be (one of) the sharpest ever - but I've yet to discover which. If you look at the MTF charts here, it isn't at all obvious that the Rikenon 50mm f2 is the sharpest tested.

I have two Rikenon 50mm lenses - an XR f1.7 and a plain f2 "in betweenie" (i.e. not 'XR' and not 'P'). They are both obviously sharper than the Mk2 kit lens at 50mm, f5.6. I've only just acquired the f1.7 and initial (non-scientific) testing suggests that it isn't *quite* as sharp as the f2 - but they are pretty close and I'd need to do quite a bit more testing to be sure.

Your shots of onions are interesting. We pretty much all have onions hanging about somehwere, so those who assert that all Pentax 50s are better than all Rikenon 50s could prove their point, if they chose to do so.

I'm happy with the f2 I have, though, I suspect that I would use it much more if it were a modern automatic lens. Sharp is definitely is, but convenient ............ ??


Andrew

This is a crop at 100% of a test shot I took at f16 about half an hour ago with the Rikenon (through a double glazed window). The streetlamp is about 50m distant. No obvious PF.





Fringing is noticeable at f8 and 100% zoom (see the bicycle shot) but is still usable.

Andrew

The PF doesn't seem to get much worse wide-open than you can see on the bicycle in the photo above. It's improving by f11 and just about gone by f16. A UV filter doesn't seem to affect the PF. A skylight maybe reduces it a little.

If it wasn't prone to PF, I think the Rikenon would have been a good buy. As it is, I probably paid too much for it. Such is life ......


Andrew

If there is a visible VW logo on a T-shirt or poster and it could be construed as an attempt to use that logo to promote the product, without permission, then it would be an infringement of the trademark. Similarly, if someone put a Ford or Land Rover oval logo on the front cover of a calendar showing photos of cars then that's an obvious infringement too, because it implies that the calendar is associated with, supplied by, approved by (or whatever) the owner of the trademark when it isn't. These, to me, seem to be obvious examples of infringements of a trademark.


Andrew

The Trade Marks Act 1994 is the relevant legislation.

You cannot infringe a trade mark unless you "use" it. Regarding a photograph of some product that displays the manufacturer's trade mark as being "use" of the trade mark is, I think, eccentric. If this were actually true in law then no one would be able to sell anything on Ebay or review a product online, in a magazine or on television without obtaining permission to photograph it. This just doesn't happen.

I think the main intention behind the Trade Marks Act is to prevent the counterfeiting of products.


Andrew

I don't understand why trademarks are even thought to be relevant to photography. Surely the whole point of a trademark is to associate a product with its supplier in the mind of a potential purchaser. Why has this any bearing on whether you can photograph an object?


Andrew

I suspect that Audi will simply tell you what they would prefer you to do. It will have no bearing on whether it is legal to do it (ditto your Ford example).

If you really want to know, you'd need to consult a lawyer specialising in Intellectual Property.

I've just discovered this interesting FAQ. You might be interested in section 38 about photographing buildings (you can!) and section 39 about motor vehicles (copyright is relevant to design drawings but not to the vehicle itself).


Andrew