wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Nikon 2.8/10,5 Sigma 3.5/8 or Tokina 10-17 ?
Bostjan Burger 2009-May-11 18:21:00
Alex explained the "optical problem" very well and I believe that the following pano:?http://www.burger.si/Slapovi/Mojstrana/Pericnik/Pericnik_05.htm?consists all the mentioned "optical errors". The pano was taken in the middle of the waterfall sprinkle what is obvious when you turn the pano in the opposite direction of the waterfall. The pano was taken hand held and as the the sprinkle was quite heavy the water drops were wiped away before each shot. You can see the halo-rainbow (not error) at the bottom of the waterfall...
:) Bostjan
PS.. a "bit" off topic for a WWP, isn't it?
--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Alex Makienko <#removed#> wrote:
From: Alex Makienko <#removed#>
Subject: Re: Nikon 2.8/10,5 Sigma 3.5/8 or Tokina 10-17 ?
To: #removed#
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 4:47 PM
Hans,
It is obvious for me that you mix effects having absolutely different nature, however in some cases they may have similar visual appearances. Grease causes diffraction and dispersion but rear filter adds reflection (I assume that photographer knows that the rear filter has also to be cleaned :-)). Physics of these effects is different.
I apologize, but I have nothing more to add. To continue we must refer to the fundamental optics, discuss drawings, optical schemes and formulas. I am not sure that moderators will tolerate this.
Regards,
Alex
PS: The pano you refer:
http://dimensions36 0.com/index. php?screen= show&id=707e2b69 &gallery= 324a5257
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]