Samuli Vahonen Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
paah75 wrote:
I think that in extreme lighting situations the recessed front element is not enough. That's why lenses like PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85/2.8G also comes with quite long lens hood albeit having its front element deep inside the lens barrel. With optimally designed lens hood the "hat trick" would not be needed or would it?
With optimally designed lens hood the "hat trick" would not be needed. Outside movie industry I haven't seen any optimal lens hoods. The petal hoods don't work very well, this far there haven't been any hood, which couldn't be helped with "hat trick" . I have done for years "hat trick" with pretty good petal hoods Canon L, Zeiss ZE, Sigma and less optimal hoods (=every other brand round cylinderical hoods). Zeiss ZE/ZF-series hoods, as well as EF L-series hoods, are pretty good compromises, but they usually come useless when you use filter/filters (assuming photographer cares sun shining to filters, which usually doesn't do much harm as long as it won't get in to the lens).
If there would be optimal hood, most likely I would leave it home, as nature photographer I could not fit 4 optimal hoods in top of everything else into my bag, my bag might not even fit one. Also every large format nature photographer I know, used (used = nobody shoot large format anymore...) "hat trick" or used something like Flare Buster - few used similar hoods what are used shooting movies, but their setup is tricky and takes some time, and you may need extra stuff to connect them to tripod, like in movie cameras.
On situations like the S-Planar sample picture; sun is just few degrees above (or left/right) from visible "frame" of image, there just isn't any standard hood which would prevent sun shining to lens. If the lens would be manufactured to block sun from this setup then it most likely would cause vignetting when focusing to infinity/other distances (depending on lens design, of course if lens is designed to have no " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">breathing then same hood might work on multiple focus distances).
For me it's no issue to use "hat trick", as I shoot +99% from tripod. I find "hat trick" cumbersome only in some situations:
- with multiple lights, e.g. when also snow reflects to lens in addition to sun and have to block from multiple directions
- when using wide lenses and holding hat requires accessories (to avoid hand visible in corner of image) e.g. holding the hat with stick etc.
- when holding reflector to fill in shadows on backlight situations
In handheld situations I usually shoot without filters and prefer lenses with very effective hoods.
paah75 wrote:
Well, I ment real optical flock material which are fe. used in telescopes and effectively kills reflections from any angle that hits it. They're also quite thin and the self adhesive stuff is quite easy to use. I have seen tests which confirmed benefits of using that stuff for the Metabones III.
Sure, these things can be optimized once the main issue has been handled (e.g. using Metabones III = masking handled). For adapters with "round hole" masking takes care first 95% of the issue, then rest MAYBE can be optimized with flocking. PS. If you find place to buy this material (in consumer quantities, I don't need whole pallet...) from Finland/EU, please PM me.
Also I doubt there is much difference in reflectivity between "real optical flock" material vs. material I used on testing masking vs. flocking. In real world test flocking (on "round hole" adapters, not talking about Metabones III, as I have zero issues with it I have done nothing with it) provided minimal help, but masking eliminated all issues almost completely, maybe reason why Sony has masked all their own lenses.
paah75 wrote:
I once compared Zeiss Makro-Planar 120/4 CF T* for Hasselblad vs. EF 100/2.8 Macro USM both equipped with hoods while shooting a studio setup with side/back lighting. The Zeiss had much lower contrast due to veiling flare in that situation.
Point was that medium format lens on "full" frame with medium format hood is less effective as lens and hood optimized for smaller format? In addition FOV of Hasselblad lens is 36 degrees diagonal (square ratio), while Canon is 24 degrees diagonal (3:2 ratio). So yes, I agree, this is to be expected test result.
Any idea is the LA-EA3 as bad as Metabones III (thou any of my EF-mount lenses didn't cause issue, but Canon TSEs at least seem to cause issues with Metabones III)? I have been thinking getting one to use my 24-70 with A7&A7r, and maybe also get Alpha 16-35.
Samuli
|