Flare has nothing to do with the metering.

It has to do with the Sun shining in to your objective especcially on certain angles.

regards, Horst

Mind blowing images and so are the landscapes.

I also had a look at your website. All i can say is: "Wow !!!"

Regards, Horst

The following pictures show the difference between using a:

1.) With UV filter (high quality Hoya HMC) and no lens hood.
2.) Without filter and no lens hood. Note the slight improvement.
3.) With lens hood and no filter. Much improved.

The sun came from the front left direction.

With filter, but no lens hood.




Without filter and without lens hood.




With lens hood and without filter.




The above images clearly show the advantage of using a lens hood.
This really applies to any lens. It can never do any harm.

the lens hoods of lenses with build in lens hoods never seem to be fully effective. For example the 77mm f1.8 Ltd and 31mm f1,8 Ltd.

Also of course with the APS-C sensors a 1.5 times longer lens hood can be used.

I can never understand the when a lens is reviewed, the comment:
The lens is more or less prone to flair, but a lens hood will improve it.

How obvious. Also all new lenses this days come with a lens hood supplied. I wonder why?

Regards, Horst

gartmore wrote:

That's why there isn't much demand ( Catch 22).

Regards, Horst

Why would you need to use AF when photographing Airplanes.

Could you not set your lens to infinity and leave it at this setting?

Regards, Horst

.

You may not be able to fit your lenses straight in to it for a while.

However this seems a great idea.
The old Azuries have the right ideas.
I have to see if I can get these in Melbourne.

Regards, Horst

Mike wrote:

Mike has a very valid point.

I used this with my Spotmatic, (about 1970)with a 55 f8 and a 35mm f2 Pentax lens where the first lens had about 20cm extension tubes and then reverse mounted the 35mm lens.
The exposure time was about 1.5minutes with a hand held torch lighting up the transistor chip which was less than 2mm across.




Regards, Horst

To get serious.

It really does,t matter how much a lens cost (or how little).
Every lens will give you a picture.

I have a lot of very old lenses, from early bellow and similar cameras.
All bought on ebay. I modified the back to 42mm Pentax thread , or drilled a hole in to a 42mm camera cap. Then I use Pentax bellows and I can focus any lens from about 60mm onwards.

I like playing around with this and taking pictures when I have the time to spend.

Most pictures are not really worth while to keep, but every now and then a really great one happens. (not much different for me with a 1000 dollar lens )
The main thing, if you have the time and inclination, to fit the lens you bought so cheaply on to your camera and take pictures.
Even lenses with some fungus on the glass can have something you may like.
The main thing is to use it and photograph with it. You'll may be surprised.
Specially in this digital age, it costs you nothing extra.

Here is an example of a lens head I found in an light beam detector to indicate if someone walks in to a shop.
The lens head was a Printing Ektar f4.5 125mm . This lens has no diaphragm and is always used wide open.
It is a little bit soft.

I liked the resulting picture and had it framed and hung




Except of a bit of cropping, this is the original. (no Photoshop etc)

Regards, Horst

I would have thought a "Smart-Phone" would be smarter than that.

Regards, Horst

It looks like we are quite lucky here in Australia.

I never had to pay import duty on items under 1000 Dollars.
Above 1000 dollars, I don't know, I never bought anything above 1000.- dollars from outside Australia.

Regards, Horst