Ok. Sounds reasonable. Guess I'm just used to the older Canon FD 1.8. What
you say about the FA 1.4 I've found to be true, there's very little flare,
great (almost unbelievable) sharpness, and plenty of contrast. Guess I'm
gonna' just have to figure out how to work with this contrast, in the way I
want to work with it. I suspect it's mostly metering problems, (what with me
not being very familiar with my new ZX-M yet,) anyway...
Skip
Subject: Re: Comparing an FA 50mm 1.4 to an FD 50mm 1.8....
> Veiling flare is an overall even flare. What it does is reduce
> contrast and saturation. My thinking is that if you had windows
> showing in the scene, you might have inadvertantly caused some
> flare of this sort, which would tend to open up the shadows in
> the scene.
> The FD 50mm 1.8 (I presume it is the breech lock considering you
> were using a TX) was not a great lens for it's time. The
> coatings were not great, and the lens was quite prone to flare.
> The FA 50mm 1.4, from what I have read here, is a pretty darned
> good lens, with excellent flare control, and superior sharpness
> and contrast.
> William Robb
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dosk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Comparing an FA 50mm 1.4 to an FD 50mm 1.8....
>
>
> > Thanks, William...
> >
> > But I don't have a clue as to what a veiling flare is? And why
> should it
> > cause the old Canon to take a more evenly balanced and less
> contrasted
> > exposure than the Pentax lens?
> >
> > Skip
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at
> http://pug.komkon.org.
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at
http://pug.komkon.org.
