Re: Infrared lenses

[boblong@xxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Long)]

On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:46:15 GMT, Rubem Amaral wrote:

|Maybe you are right but I have the feeling that we are talking about
|different things. What I saw in the US was indeed an "IR lens" and it
|needed no filter. As a matter of fact, it had that inscription =
"infrared"
|on the borders. It was made (apparently) in stainless steel and was
|supposed to be placed upon a common lens, like a filter (but it was much
|bigger than a filter). The lens was redish, but not as red as the =
filters
|we normally use with Kodak HIE. I first saw it at Photo 47, in NY city. =
I
|was looking for Kodak HIE and the seller said "I never heard about
|infrared film (!) but I can offer you an IR lens". He used that =
expression
|and they are supposed to know the meaning of the term "lens". I wish I =
had
|bought it!

I wish you had, too--I'd love to know more about this mysterious lens
(or supplementary lens).  Although I'm an avid reader of such things,
I've never seen anything fitting this description in the ads or
catalogs of B&H, Adorama, Focus, Porter's, or Spiratone, all of which
I'd trust more than 47th Street.  So while it may have seemed like a
fairly common item on the American market during your visit to New
York, I assure you that, unless I'm misunderstanding your description,
it is by no means common.  Furthermore, given the level of chicanery
that goes on in the discount photo market (of which 47th Street is a
progenitor), I'm sorry to say that outright misrepresentation of the
product, whatever it was, is a distinct possibility.

Bob Long
(boblong@xxxxxxxxxxx)

------------------------------