Re: Lens Hoods
In addition, I've made some rear lens caps that are solidly cemented together, allowing two lenses to fit in the space that one lens often takes. The caps work very well and hold the lenses securely. Once you've learned which combinations (tele + wide, with/without hood, for example) fit in any given compartment of your bag, you can then carry more lenses. Yes - I've been using one of Shel's double caps for some time, and in my usual kit bag it generally has an A 100/2.8 Macro on the bottom pointing down and an A 20/2.8 on top pointing up - it works quite well. Fred
Re: Lens Hoods
I use the 2 rear caps as well, but had the epoxie let go 20 years ago. (Yes, I had properly prepared the mating surfaces!) Since then, I've gone with duct (duc) tape arounf the edges. It works great and is easy to check if it is still holding tight. Regards, Bob S. On 12/25/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In addition, I've made some rear lens caps that are solidly cemented together, allowing two lenses to fit in the space that one lens often takes. The caps work very well and hold the lenses securely. Once you've learned which combinations (tele + wide, with/without hood, for example) fit in any given compartment of your bag, you can then carry more lenses. Yes - I've been using one of Shel's double caps for some time, and in my usual kit bag it generally has an A 100/2.8 Macro on the bottom pointing down and an A 20/2.8 on top pointing up - it works quite well. Fred
Re: Lens Hoods
After a bit of trial an error, I worked up a technique that results in a very solid bond. The lens caps are sanded down so that the mating surfaces are flat and somewhat rough (80 grit paper, IIRC). I then apply an epoxy that comes in two joined tubes and which is expressed with a single plunger (I can't recall the exact brand or type - I'd have to look for the tubes - but certain types work better). Finally, the two caps are pressed together firmly for a minimum of 12 hours using a small clamp (http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/clamp.jpg). Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Sullivan I use the 2 rear caps as well, but had the epoxie let go 20 years ago. (Yes, I had properly prepared the mating surfaces!) Since then, I've gone with duct (duc) tape arounf the edges. It works great and is easy to check if it is still holding tight. On 12/25/05, Fred wrote: In addition, I've made some rear lens caps that are solidly cemented together, allowing two lenses to fit in the space that one lens often takes. The caps work very well and hold the lenses securely. Once you've learned which combinations (tele + wide, with/without hood, for example) fit in any given compartment of your bag, you can then carry more lenses. Yes - I've been using one of Shel's double caps for some time, and in my usual kit bag it generally has an A 100/2.8 Macro on the bottom pointing down and an A 20/2.8 on top pointing up - it works quite well.
Re: Lens Hoods
On 24/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there some kind of mathematical formula? HTH: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Lens Hoods - know your worst case
hood vignetting first makes itself visible in the form of slight light falloff in the image corners and its first seen/worst at wide open. In many cases, slight vignetting at wide open ( seen as slight corner light falloff) goes away completely with stopping down or with lens extension/close focussing ( no occurance of vignetting whatsoever). That's why when you calculate your ideal lens hood size you have to assume wide open and infintity because THESE are worst cases most likely to cause any vignetting, not stoppped down and close up. Bottom line is if you are unsure about a given hood on a given shot, stopping down will minimize any vignetting, possibly eliminate it completely. And so will closer focusing especially extremely close. jco -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 2:07 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Lens Hoods - know your worst case Perhaps, but if you don't stop down, you can't see the vignetting in the image. Not enough DOF. Try it, you can see for yourself. Paul On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:30 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Correction, the worst case for hoods ( most likely to cause vignetting) is not close focus and small apertures, it is with lens at infinity (widest angle of view) and wide open ( optical path closest to hood). It seems to me a common myth that stopped way down and lens set to mimimum focus would be worst case but that's backwards jco
Re: Lens Hoods
In a message dated 12/24/2005 7:44:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've got caps on all my hoods. They're easy to find. I get all of mine in the supermarket - the plastic lids from various containers work very well. Plastic caps from Hershey's chocolate syrup, and those from some Jelly Belly jelly beans cans work great. Shel === Cool. Thanks, Shel and Paul. Going to play around with my existing hoods and see if I can shuffle any. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Lens Hoods
On Dec 25, 2005, at 4:34 PM, David Oswald wrote: I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me when I'm using the camera on the go. I tend to have the same problem but my solution is to make more space :) Many of my lenses have the hoods built-in or at least reversible. For the 13 lenses I have, I own three separate hoods and all lenses are covered one way or another. One of those hoods is shared between the 35mm and 50mm lenses (it's a Pentax square hood for 50mm which doesn't vignette on the 35). For my four 6x7 lenses I have two hoods... the other two are built-in. And they make it hard to remove the lens cap unless you've got scrawny little children-size fingers. I either have a hood fitted or a cap, never both. If I change lenses in a hurry I will quite happily place a hooded lens into the bag without its cap. Usually face-down or sideways to prevent stuff falling into the front element. The thing I hate is when I have several lenses open and lose track of which pocket contains the cap I'm looking for. I try to put all caps into the same pocket but that rarely happens in practice :) - Dave
Re: Lens Hoods
Being a minimalist, in that I don't like to carry a big bag about stuffed with lots of gear, or because I sometimes want a fair amount of gear in a small bag, I always look for ways for some things to do double or triple duty, here's what I do to save space. It's possible, as David notes, to have a single lens hood that works well on more than one lens, so depending on which camera you're using (film or digital) and which lenses/hoods you're using, one hood may work well for as many as three or four different lenses. In addition, I've made some rear lens caps that are solidly cemented together, allowing two lenses to fit in the space that one lens often takes. The caps work very well and hold the lenses securely. Once you've learned which combinations (tele + wide, with/without hood, for example) fit in any given compartment of your bag, you can then carry more lenses. I made the first one to handle two Leica lenses, and sent the prototype to Bob Walkden who's been using it for quite some time with good results. One nice thing about these double rear caps is that you can make them to hold lenses for different cameras. A number of people may shoot with, for example, a Leica and a Pentax, so attaching a cap for each works out very nicely. There are some lens hoods that are telescoping, and will compact rather nicely, and which can be used on many different lenses. These hoods are not common, but I have seen them - I believe Bill Lawlor, who sometimes drops in here, has one of these hoods. Maybe this will give you some ideas to get creative with your own equipment. If anyone wants to know the best way to mate two rear lens caps, drop me a line off list. I tried a few different approaches before settling on one that I now know works well and which is very strong and reliable. Shel [Original Message] From: David Mann David Oswald wrote: I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me when I'm using the camera on the go. I tend to have the same problem but my solution is to make more space :) Many of my lenses have the hoods built-in or at least reversible. For the 13 lenses I have, I own three separate hoods and all lenses are covered one way or another. One of those hoods is shared between the 35mm and 50mm lenses (it's a Pentax square hood for 50mm which doesn't vignette on the 35). For my four 6x7 lenses I have two hoods... the other two are built-in. And they make it hard to remove the lens cap unless you've got scrawny little children-size fingers. I either have a hood fitted or a cap, never both. If I change lenses in a hurry I will quite happily place a hooded lens into the bag without its cap. Usually face-down or sideways to prevent stuff falling into the front element. The thing I hate is when I have several lenses open and lose track of which pocket contains the cap I'm looking for. I try to put all caps into the same pocket but that rarely happens in practice :)
Re: Lens Hoods
Mike Johnston wrote a good SMP column about flare, lens hoods, etc.] http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml By the way, a common misconception about lenses is that you need the longest possible hood to protect the lens. This isn't necessarily so. With some lenses, acutely-impinging light is the biggest cause of flare, more so than more directly impinging light. A short lens hood which protects the lens from this glancing sidelight will serve well to reduce flare, even though it's relatively useless at protecting the front element of the lens from direct light rays. And: The Pentax 43mm Limited was the best lens I ever encountered at this test. The superb flare control of this lens probably partially accounts for its amazing ability to record microdetail. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Lens Hoods
No lens hood, no matter how deep or well designed, will protect the front element of the lens from direct light rays. That doesn't mean that a bright light, directly in front of the lens, will cause acute flare and image degradation. I've seen a few Pentax and Zeiss T* lenses that controlled flare in that circumstance very well, although controlled flare does not mean the absence of flare. A longer hood will protect against flare from a narrower angle than a short hood. Over the years I've made numerous tests using various lenses with different length and diameter hoods and a bright light. In all instances a longer hood reduced the angle at which point flare became a concern or the bright light entered the frame and degraded the image, either through flare or by upsetting composition. Unless a photographer is willing to invest the time to do such tests, and invest the $$ for a wide variety of lens hoods, it's probably best to use the deepest hood possible. Shel [Original Message] From: Mark Roberts Mike Johnston wrote a good SMP column about flare, lens hoods, etc.] http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml By the way, a common misconception about lenses is that you need the longest possible hood to protect the lens. This isn't necessarily so. With some lenses, acutely-impinging light is the biggest cause of flare, more so than more directly impinging light. A short lens hood which protects the lens from this glancing sidelight will serve well to reduce flare, even though it's relatively useless at protecting the front element of the lens from direct light rays.
Re: Lens Hoods
Use a hood all the time, except perhaps with an on-camera flash that it might obstruct. The idea is to prevent light from hitting the lens at obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late to go back and put the hood on. Use the hood. Many of us try to find hoods that offer even more protection than the original equipment version. For example, I use a hood originally meant for a Takumar 135 with my FA 50 when mounted on the *istD. It provides optimum protection, and with the reduced FOV of the digital camera, it doesn't vignette. Hoods are a good thing. Paul On Dec 24, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Sunny Use itChung wrote: I have a lens hood, buy I hardly ever use it. Whenever I do use it, I can never tell the difference in my pictures. What is the best situation to use hoods in, and how do get the most out of this accessory. So far, I know NOT to use it with flash and that it can make my lens look bigger to non-camera people, but haven't really figured out its use.
Re: Lens Hoods
I'd agree with everything Paul said, and would add a few comments as well. It's possible to use deeper hoods with film cameras also. The hood for the Takumar 105 (and similar sized hoods) works great on the various Pentax 50mm lenses for example. Hoods also protect the lens from dust, dirt, moisture, and from getting banged against hard objects. They're not perfect in that regard, but they do help. If you use a filter on your lens, a hood is, IMO, an absolute necessity. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 12/24/2005 12:46:34 PM Subject: Re: Lens Hoods Use a hood all the time, except perhaps with an on-camera flash that it might obstruct. The idea is to prevent light from hitting the lens at obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late to go back and put the hood on. Use the hood. Many of us try to find hoods that offer even more protection than the original equipment version. For example, I use a hood originally meant for a Takumar 135 with my FA 50 when mounted on the *istD. It provides optimum protection, and with the reduced FOV of the digital camera, it doesn't vignette. Hoods are a good thing. Paul On Dec 24, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Sunny Use itChung wrote: I have a lens hood, buy I hardly ever use it. Whenever I do use it, I can never tell the difference in my pictures. What is the best situation to use hoods in, and how do get the most out of this accessory. So far, I know NOT to use it with flash and that it can make my lens look bigger to non-camera people, but haven't really figured out its use.
Re: Lens Hoods
I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is). My lens suite with hoods: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lenshood-lineup-1845.jpg Godfrey On Dec 24, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Use a hood all the time, except perhaps with an on-camera flash that it might obstruct. The idea is to prevent light from hitting the lens at obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late to go back and put the hood on. Use the hood. Many of us try to find hoods that offer even more protection than the original equipment version. For example, I use a hood originally meant for a Takumar 135 with my FA 50 when mounted on the *istD. It provides optimum protection, and with the reduced FOV of the digital camera, it doesn't vignette. Hoods are a good thing. Paul On Dec 24, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Sunny Use itChung wrote: I have a lens hood, buy I hardly ever use it. Whenever I do use it, I can never tell the difference in my pictures. What is the best situation to use hoods in, and how do get the most out of this accessory. So far, I know NOT to use it with flash and that it can make my lens look bigger to non-camera people, but haven't really figured out its use.
Re: Lens Hoods
In a message dated 12/24/2005 12:46:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late to go back and put the hood on. Use the hood. Many of us try to find hoods that offer even more protection than the original equipment version. For example, I use a hood originally meant for a Takumar 135 with my FA 50 when mounted on the *istD. It provides optimum protection, and with the reduced FOV of the digital camera, it doesn't vignette. Hoods are a good thing. Paul == What about rubber hoods? I got one for my Canon 50mm 1.8 because it was cheaper. I was happy to find it was better than I thought it would be. Of course, it's a short lens. So what's the take on rubber hoods? (I have one other lens without a hood. Although, come to think of it, I haven't played around and seen if one of my existing hoods would work.) Marnie aka Doe
Re: Lens Hoods
Nothing wrong with rubber. But most rubber hoods are too short and too wide to provide much real coverage. They're designed to be a one size fits all solution. But any hood is better than no hood. Paul On Dec 24, 2005, 10:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/24/2005 12:46:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late to go back and put the hood on. Use the hood. Many of us try to find hoods that offer even more protection than the original equipment version. For example, I use a hood originally meant for a Takumar 135 with my FA 50 when mounted on the *istD. It provides optimum protection, and with the reduced FOV of the digital camera, it doesn't vignette. Hoods are a good thing. Paul == What about rubber hoods? I got one for my Canon 50mm 1.8 because it was cheaper. I was happy to find it was better than I thought it would be. Of course, it's a short lens. So what's the take on rubber hoods? (I have one other lens without a hood. Although, come to think of it, I haven't played around and seen if one of my existing hoods would work.) Marnie aka Doe
Re: Lens Hoods
The material from which a hood is made should have little or no influence on performance, all else being equal. I prefer some rubber hoods to plastic hoods, as plastic hoods often have a shiny or reflective inner surface. A number of people have flocked their plastic hoods. Also, I have a strong dislike for plastic, much preferring metal. Most rubber hoods are of poor to medium quality, and, IMO, won't last as long as a metal hood. I do have a 49mm Vivitar rubber hood that I love, but I've never seen another rubber hood so well constructed and with such heavy-duty rubber. One thing that's nice about round metal hoods is that they are easier to use with a Pol filter. Mount the filter to the lens, the hood to the filter, and then turn the hood to adjust the filter. Rubber hoods tend to collapse to some degree when doing this, making such use more difficult. The absolute worst rubber hood I've ever seen or used was, unfortunately, a Pentax hood. It was the original hood for the A24~50. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about rubber hoods? I got one for my Canon 50mm 1.8 because it was cheaper. I was happy to find it was better than I thought it would be. Of course, it's a short lens. So what's the take on rubber hoods? (I have one other lens without a hood. Although, come to think of it, I haven't played around and seen if one of my existing hoods would work.)
Re: Lens Hoods
In a message dated 12/24/2005 7:17:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing wrong with rubber. But most rubber hoods are too short and too wide to provide much real coverage. They're designed to be a one size fits all solution. But any hood is better than no hood. Paul === Hmmm. That's probably why the rubber hood is fine on my 50mm. Short lens, short hood. Is there anyway to tell how long a hood should be? Without vignetting? I have a hood (non-rubber) for a longer lens that might work on a slightly shorter lens. Is there some kind of mathematical formula? Or is the only way to tell to take some shots? TIA, Marnie aka Doe
Re: Lens Hoods
In a message dated 12/24/2005 7:20:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One thing that's nice about round metal hoods is that they are easier to use with a Pol filter. Mount the filter to the lens, the hood to the filter, and then turn the hood to adjust the filter. Rubber hoods tend to collapse to some degree when doing this, making such use more difficult. [snip] Shel Cool. I never thought of that. I do have a circular polarize for my wide angle. I am going to try that. Thanks! Marnie aka Doe
Re: Lens Hoods
Shooting with the hood in place is the best way to check for vignetting. Shoot a solid white surface with the lens at its smallest stop. If you don't see any corner darkeness in the image, it's not vignetting. Paul On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shootin In a message dated 12/24/2005 7:17:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing wrong with rubber. But most rubber hoods are too short and too wide to provide much real coverage. They're designed to be a one size fits all solution. But any hood is better than no hood. Paul === Hmmm. That's probably why the rubber hood is fine on my 50mm. Short lens, short hood. Is there anyway to tell how long a hood should be? Without vignetting? I have a hood (non-rubber) for a longer lens that might work on a slightly shorter lens. Is there some kind of mathematical formula? Or is the only way to tell to take some shots? TIA, Marnie aka Doe
Re: Lens Hoods
This might get you started ... http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html However, it's so simple to put a hood on a lens and snap a pic. Be sure to focus to infinity and stop that puppy down to get a worst case scenario. Might be good to check the hood with a filter attached if you ever plan to use a filter. Shel ... [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there anyway to tell how long a hood should be? Without vignetting? I have a hood (non-rubber) for a longer lens that might work on a slightly shorter lens. Is there some kind of mathematical formula? Or is the only way to tell to take some shots?
Re: Lens Hoods
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is). I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me when I'm using the camera on the go. And they make it hard to remove the lens cap unless you've got scrawny little children-size fingers. Part of the problem with the lens cap is Pentax's design. I like the pinch to remove idea, but the pinchers should be on the front of the cap (like Tamron caps) instead at the perimeter of the cap (Pentax FA cap style). It's awkward, and I've gotten finger prints on lenses many times trying to fumble with the cap while using a hood. ...so much for a hood protecting the lens. I guess I need to look for a whole set of lens caps that work well with hoods.
Re: Lens Hoods
You left out an important step, Paul ... ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Shooting with the hood in place is the best way to check for vignetting. Shoot a solid white surface with the lens at its smallest stop. If you don't see any corner darkeness in the image, it's not vignetting.
Re: Lens Hoods
Whoops. I always screw that up make sure you've focused close Shel [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 12/24/2005 7:34:16 PM Subject: Re: Lens Hoods This might get you started ... http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html However, it's so simple to put a hood on a lens and snap a pic. Be sure to focus to infinity and stop that puppy down to get a worst case scenario. Might be good to check the hood with a filter attached if you ever plan to use a filter. Shel ... [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there anyway to tell how long a hood should be? Without vignetting? I have a hood (non-rubber) for a longer lens that might work on a slightly shorter lens. Is there some kind of mathematical formula? Or is the only way to tell to take some shots?
Re: Lens Hoods
I've got caps on all my hoods. They're easy to find. I get all of mine in the supermarket - the plastic lids from various containers work very well. Plastic caps from Hershey's chocolate syrup, and those from some Jelly Belly jelly beans cans work great. Shel [Original Message] From: David Oswald I guess I need to look for a whole set of lens caps that work well with hoods.
Re: Lens Hoods
David Oswald wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is). I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me when I'm using the camera on the go. And they make it hard to remove the lens cap unless you've got scrawny little children-size fingers. Part of the problem with the lens cap is Pentax's design. I like the pinch to remove idea, but the pinchers should be on the front of the cap (like Tamron caps) instead at the perimeter of the cap (Pentax FA cap style). It's awkward, and I've gotten finger prints on lenses many times trying to fumble with the cap while using a hood. ...so much for a hood protecting the lens. I guess I need to look for a whole set of lens caps that work well with hoods. Tamron sells those nice caps down to 52mm. Their 49mm caps don't have the inset pinchers. I'm a big fan of reversible and built in hoods. Most of my longer lenses have one of these types, except my 135 which needs a hood. I use the screw-in metal hoods on the wide-angles as they are relatively small and go well with a polarizer. Still need a good hood for 50mm's, in both 52mm and 49mm. -Adam
RE: Lens Hoods - know your worst case
Correction, the worst case for hoods ( most likely to cause vignetting) is not close focus and small apertures, it is with lens at infinity (widest angle of view) and wide open ( optical path closest to hood). It seems to me a common myth that stopped way down and lens set to mimimum focus would be worst case but that's backwards jco
Re: Lens Hoods
On Dec 24, 2005, at 7:34 PM, David Oswald wrote: I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is). I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me when I'm using the camera on the go. ... As you can see from the photo I posted, my hoods add about an inch to the length of each lens. To put lens caps on, I remove the hoods and use generic clip-on caps that I like. I don't normally have the lenses capped when in my working bag. I store the lenses in my working bag hood down, in a padded cell or lens pouch. Easy to get at and use ... just pull the lens off the camera and slide it into its slot, pull a rear cap from the lens I want to use and fit it to the camera, and fit the free rear cap. Godfrey
Re: Lens Hoods
I take the cap off before installing the hood and leave it off until I remove the hood. Some of my hoods fit over the lenses in my case. I have three or four others that fit one within the other. I think I have eight hoods in my case, and they work with thirteen lenses. Paul On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Dav id Oswald wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is). I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me when I'm using the camera on the go. And they make it hard to remove the lens cap unless you've got scrawny little children-size fingers. Part of the problem with the lens cap is Pentax's design. I like the pinch to remove idea, but the pinchers should be on the front of the cap (like Tamron caps) instead at the perimeter of the cap (Pentax FA cap style). It's awkward, and I've gotten finger prints on lenses many times trying to fumble with the cap while using a hood. ...so much for a hood protecting the lens. I guess I need to look for a whole set of lens caps that work well with hoods.
Re: Lens Hoods - know your worst case
Perhaps, but if you don't stop down, you can't see the vignetting in the image. Not enough DOF. Try it, you can see for yourself. Paul On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:30 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Correction, the worst case for hoods ( most likely to cause vignetting) is not close focus and small apertures, it is with lens at infinity (widest angle of view) and wide open ( optical path closest to hood). It seems to me a common myth that stopped way down and lens set to mimimum focus would be worst case but that's backwards jco
RE: Lens hoods (was: Why did this lens sell for so much???)
Hi, While it's nice to be though of as being right, I'm not quite sure what I was right about. Perhaps that metal lens hoods offer better protection in a fall? I'm not sure I agree with that premise. A fall is a pretty random act, and numerous things - surface upon which the object is dropped, angle, speed, weight of object, resiliency of the object, to name a few, all play a part in the resultant damage. While I ~believe~ that a screwed in (on?) metal hood offers the most protection, there have been those who swear they were lucky because their camera had a rubber hood, or that a plastic hood might better absorb shock. Regardless, I like such hoods because they seem more stable on the camera than plastic clip-on hoods, and the threads allow for more varied filter use (although these days filters are rarely on my lenses), and because, with few exceptions, I find the look and feel of rubber hoods to be cheap and flimsy, for the most part. However, I've a gorgeous Vivitar rubber hood here that is just wonderful - the rubber is firm, the attaching ring is strong, and the hood is of a good size for the lenses for which it was designed. Over the past couple of years I've accumulated a number of round metal hoods that are of a diameter that accept the yellow plastic lids from Hershey's syrup cans, Jelly Belly cans, and other such containers. These caps slip over the lens hood, affording protection to the lens while allowing the hood to remain in place. The caps are an inexpensive alternative to more expensive caps that essentially do the same thing. For those who may find my description a bit vague, you can see such a setup here: http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/cancap.jpg Shel Belinkoff People that hate cats will come back as mice in their next life. [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 9/9/2004 5:08:38 PM Subject: Lens hoods (was: Why did this lens sell for so much???) David, Shel is absolutely right for a number of reasons. Ask about my family vacation to Washington DC with 3 little kids. I was completely surprised to find a parking space on the street and got out of the car to drop my Super Program from chest height directly on the A50/1.4 lens (thought I had the strap around my neck)! The whole thing landed on the concrete sidewalk, but on the metal lens hood. It was pretty well destroyed, but the camera and lens are still fine today. I don't use the plastic clip-on hoods if I can avoid them. Regards, Bob S. Shel wrote: Those plastic clip on hoods may work, but they lack the beauty and craftsmanship of the all metal Takumar hoods. They are like a clip-on bow tie vs a silk cravat or a hand painted Countess Mara tie. Dave, if you've never seen the dedicated Tak 35mm hood, or the one for the 20mm lens, or some of the other early, all metal beauties, you don't know what you're missing. A great lens deserves a great lens hood vbg
Re: Lens Hoods
However the pentax hood on my 100mm f2.8M [49mm] finally broke yesterday [not bad after 20 yaers] and I can't think of alogical replacement for that .any body any ideas ? Short of the obvious, an OM 100mm F2.8 hood seems ideal. It's a rigid rubber type that won't explode when you eventually drop it. Regrettably no longer available new, since Olympus stopped selling all the SLR gear this month. Kind regards Peter
Re: Lens Hoods
The Takumar hood for the 105/2.8 and 100/4 macro is a nice metal screw in hood with a 49mm thread. It should work well. I found mine on ebay for $3.00 USD. William in Utah. - Original Message - From: Clive evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:13 AM Subject: Lens Hoods Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I always use a hood for the extra protection , as well as cutting down fare, but find Pentax hoods pretty flimsy.. On my 24mm M [52mm] I have always used a Nikon HN1, not as nice looking as the Pentax item, but metal not plastic and noo falre problems [cheap too!] On my 35mm f2 M [49mm] I use an Olympus 28/35mm hood, metal, no problems.. However the pentax hood on my 100mm f2.8M [49mm] finally broke yesterday [not bad after 20 yaers] and I can't think of alogical replacement for that .any body any ideas ? Clive Antibes France
RE: Lens Hoods
However the pentax hood on my 100mm f2.8M [49mm] finally broke yesterday [not bad after 20 years] and I can't think of a logical replacement for that .any body any ideas ? The old Takumar 100/4 lens hood is a nice metal 49mm. I have it on my M 100/4 macro. You may also be able to use the Takumar hood for the 135/3.5 given Pentax's tendency of designing lens hoods to be used with filters a polarizer, but I would check for vignetting first. They are both nice solid metal screw-on hoods. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: lens hoods
Someday, somebody will invent a dynamic dedicated hood for zooms, so that the length and shape changes as you zoom :-) Andre wrote: There are two brands that make zoom rubber hoods, Hoya and Hama. -- Tamron made an ingenious rigid-plastic telescoping hood for its SP 70-210/3.5. The lens receded as you zoomed to a smaller focal length. Tamron may have used this mechanism on the hoods of some of its other zooms, as well. I have found that when I use a zoom rubber hood, I invariably forget to change the setting as I zoom. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lens hoods
Someday, somebody will invent a dynamic dedicated hood for zooms, so that the length and shape changes as you zoom :-) Andre wrote: There are two brands that make zoom rubber hoods, Hoya and Hama. -- Tamron made an ingenious rigid-plastic telescoping hood for its SP 70-210/3.5. The lens receded as you zoomed to a smaller focal length. Tamron may have used this mechanism on the hoods of some of its other zooms, as well. I have found that when I use a zoom rubber hood, I invariably forget to change the setting as I zoom. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any photo? Is it common on eBay? Was it for 62mm or 67mm? (I have a rubber one for the 67mm lens.)à Andre --
Re: lens hoods
I found that to be true with my Universa Press and the 100/2.8 lens. I still have the hood in the hopes of someday replacing the camera. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW as good as the Mamiya 7 lenses are they flare like hell, it was a shock especially so due to the fact that it's a range-finder :-(
Re: lens hoods
Feroze Kistan wrote: Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors or at night, or is the hood only to prevent flare from sunlight? Hi Feroze, The simple answer is to use the lens hood for every single shot. Always. I'm not sure what the complex answer is. I'm just a simple guy. ;-) John
Re: lens hoods
On 29 Jan 2003 at 15:12, Feroze Kistan wrote: Another dumb question: Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors or at night, or is the hood only to prevent flare from sunlight? Any light source outside the frame can promote flare (and inside the frame of course), so the best policy for maximizing image quality is to always use hoods. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: lens hoods
It's not a dumb question and I hope this isn't a dumb answer. I always use a lens hood. SMC is great, but using a lens hood also helps to reduce lens flare. It also keeps rain off the front element and protects the front of the lens from incidental contact with hard elements, unless, of course, you are using a collapsible rubber hood. On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:12 pm, Feroze Kistan wrote: Another dumb question: Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors or at night, or is the hood only to prevent flare from sunlight? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: lens hoods
Feroze Kistan wrote: Thanks guys for all the replies. I had assumed hoods are only for sunlight, can studio lights or household lamps cause flare then? Think of them as blinders, as on a horse. They will cause *only* light rays coming directly from the framed image to hit the film. In practice, this tends to cause those subtle image quality factors to become more apparent than without their use. As with most maximizing efforts the difference may be difficult to put one's finger on directly, but be at the same time apparent in a general undefinable way. Hoods are always worth using, IMHO, as they maximize the fidelity of the resulting image. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: lens hoods
Hi Bill, If you are using available light to take and indoor picture, would you not than be limiting the amount of light reaching the film, or is that the intention. How does a camera meter then, does it meter diffrently if you are using a 28mm v/s a 200mm? I might be misunderstanding the concept though and these are 2 diffrent issues? Feroze - Original Message - From: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 9:42 PM Subject: Re: lens hoods Feroze Kistan wrote: Thanks guys for all the replies. I had assumed hoods are only for sunlight, can studio lights or household lamps cause flare then? Think of them as blinders, as on a horse. They will cause *only* light rays coming directly from the framed image to hit the film. In practice, this tends to cause those subtle image quality factors to become more apparent than without their use. As with most maximizing efforts the difference may be difficult to put one's finger on directly, but be at the same time apparent in a general undefinable way. Hoods are always worth using, IMHO, as they maximize the fidelity of the resulting image. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: lens hoods
The camera's meter is only concerned with what the lens sees in it's field of view. The meter does not differentiate between a 28mm or a 200mm. The lens hood, on the other hand, blocks extraneous light from striking the lens at angles outside of the lens' field of view. This extraneous light reflects back and forth inside the lens and reduces the contrast and color saturation. As Bill says, it is hard to define, but you know when you have a problem. Ken On Wednesday 29 January 2003 08:19 pm, Feroze Kistan wrote: If you are using available light to take and indoor picture, would you not than be limiting the amount of light reaching the film, or is that the intention. How does a camera meter then, does it meter diffrently if you are using a 28mm v/s a 200mm? I might be misunderstanding the concept though and these are 2 diffrent issues? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: lens hoods
Hi Ken, Actually I think I have seen it, I have a few pics I took today that seem to have a haze over it. Its in focus and colour is right but it looks like a soft focus filter is on. I had assumed that the UV filter thats currently on the lens would have taken care of that. Feroze - Original Message - From: Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:39 PM Subject: Re: lens hoods The camera's meter is only concerned with what the lens sees in it's field of view. The meter does not differentiate between a 28mm or a 200mm. The lens hood, on the other hand, blocks extraneous light from striking the lens at angles outside of the lens' field of view. This extraneous light reflects back and forth inside the lens and reduces the contrast and color saturation. As Bill says, it is hard to define, but you know when you have a problem. Ken On Wednesday 29 January 2003 08:19 pm, Feroze Kistan wrote: If you are using available light to take and indoor picture, would you not than be limiting the amount of light reaching the film, or is that the intention. How does a camera meter then, does it meter diffrently if you are using a 28mm v/s a 200mm? I might be misunderstanding the concept though and these are 2 diffrent issues? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: lens hoods
Feroze Kistan wrote: If you are using available light to take and indoor picture, would you not than be limiting the amount of light reaching the film, or is that the intention. Limiting only in the sense that the lens accepts just the light reflected directly from the framed image. Any other (peripherial) light would potentially flare or other- wise diminish the effect of what you want to reach the film - the reflections from the framed image. How does a camera meter then, does it meter diffrently if you are using a 28mm v/s a 200mm? I might be misunderstanding the concept though and these are 2 diffrent issues? Metering issues remain as always - an attempt to expose at 18% grey or whatever. Each metering method has a means for the photographer to compensate according to his/her intentions depending upon distribution of tonal values in the framed image - backlighting, amount of bright sky, etc. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: lens hoods
Unless I have a particular need for a filter, I don't use one. Most of us aren't going to spend the $50-70 that a good filter costs just to protect our lenses. Your UV filter may have added to your problem if it was one of the cheap off-brand filters. As tough as SMC coating is supposed to be, I have never seen the logic of paying good money for a top quality lens and then screwing a cheap filter onto it. Ken On Wednesday 29 January 2003 08:46 pm, Feroze Kistan wrote: Actually I think I have seen it, I have a few pics I took today that seem to have a haze over it. Its in focus and colour is right but it looks like a soft focus filter is on. I had assumed that the UV filter thats currently on the lens would have taken care of that. -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: lens hoods
Hi Ken, I don't have too much knowledge of filters. This ones is a Hama UV390 C-Haze filter. Isn't that what haze filters are supposed to prevent? Feroze - Original Message - From: Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: lens hoods Unless I have a particular need for a filter, I don't use one. Most of us aren't going to spend the $50-70 that a good filter costs just to protect our lenses. Your UV filter may have added to your problem if it was one of the cheap off-brand filters. As tough as SMC coating is supposed to be, I have never seen the logic of paying good money for a top quality lens and then screwing a cheap filter onto it. Ken On Wednesday 29 January 2003 08:46 pm, Feroze Kistan wrote: Actually I think I have seen it, I have a few pics I took today that seem to have a haze over it. Its in focus and colour is right but it looks like a soft focus filter is on. I had assumed that the UV filter thats currently on the lens would have taken care of that. -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: lens hoods
ALWAYS use a hood is sound advice. Or, you could never use a hood. I've done both over the years. Generally, the flare performance of a lens is determined by its coatings. The better the coatings, the less necessary a hood becomes. The worse the coatings, the less a lens hood is going to be able to eliminate flare anyway. The percentage of shots that are affected by a hood at all is quite low. That's not to say that they're useless. They're not, always, and with some lenses they're needed more than with others. But their importance is often overrated. Another option is to just use your hand, when you're in a situation where strong light is hitting the lens and you're able to shade the lens without getting your hand in the picture. (View camera photographers often use the dark slide.) Another option when shooting against the light is to position the front of the camera in a little sliver of shade, say from a tree branch. In any event, flare is like any other of the many visual qualities of pixtures (motion blur, film grain, odd drawing, distortion, etc.)--it can sometimes be used to good aesthetic effect. So a final option is to remain aware, take reasonable steps to reduce flare, and, when it happens anyway, enjoy it. --Mike
Re: lens hoods
ALWAYS use a hood is sound advice. Well, that sound clever, but what about the risk for vignetting (or what it's called)? Last autumn I used my LX often together with the M 24/2.8 during a field trip in Greece. Plus a hood I 'thought' was suitable for the lense. Great shots. But ... a lot of them were vignetted. Is there any way to figure out or calculate which hood goes with which lense? Thanks Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lens hoods
Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors or at night, or is the hood only to prevent flare from sunlight? If I may offer the list my working practices My lowest common denominator is: if in doubt, use the lenshood. However, it is quite obvious that a lenshood serves more than one purpose. Two of the most important ones are eliminating flare from a direct light source (like the sun), and increasing contrast (by cutting down on as much extraneous light entering the lens as possible. However, when I'm shooting indoors with flash, say a function, with room lights etc then I usually leave the hood off. One could argue that wall-mounted tungsten lights are a terrible source of flare but actually I couldn't give a monkey's wotsit and just go for it. Part of the trick is to remain as hidden as possible, and lurching a camera around is bad enough, but protruding lenshoods, especially shaped like huge wavy flowery things from Holland, don't make for decent snaps as one quickly becomes the centre of attention when one is trying to be just the opposite. OTOH, some lenshoods are pretty useless even when used as designed. Outside in the sun, I use a flag to shade the lens on wide angle landscapes - it really helps a lot. Just moving onto zooms. Anyone thinking about the mechanics of a zoom lens will have surely pondered that the lenshood of such an optic will have to be a compromise. Now, if you have a 28-70 mm (say), then you will have deduced that the(fixed plastic or metal) hood is really a 28mm hood and nowhere near good enough to use at the 70 mm end. If you used a hood suitable for the 70mm end while 'zoomed out' at 28mm, you would suffer vignetting (dark corners of the frame) as the hood intruded on the picture. Of course, the answer is to alter the lenshood as the zoom lens focal length is altered. Fixed hoods cannot do this - a bellows hood can, and is really the only suitable answer to this particular problem. Anything else is generally a compromise. Someday, somebody will invent a dynamic dedicated hood for zooms, so that the length and shape changes as you zoom :-) Probably already here for all I know. Best, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: lens hoods
Ahh, I started shooting seriously using SMC glass, I didn't know that you shouldn't shoot into the sun until I met some Canon and Nikon shooters :-) g Ditto here, but with Contax T* lenses. --Mike
Re: lens hoods
Just moving onto zooms. Anyone thinking about the mechanics of a zoom lens will have surely pondered that the lenshood of such an optic will have to be a compromise. Now, if you have a 28-70 mm (say), then you will have deduced that the(fixed plastic or metal) hood is really a 28mm hood and nowhere near good enough to use at the 70 mm end. If you used a hood suitable for the 70mm end while 'zoomed out' at 28mm, you would suffer vignetting (dark corners of the frame) as the hood intruded on the picture. Of course, the answer is to alter the lenshood as the zoom lens focal length is altered. Fixed hoods cannot do this - a bellows hood can, and is really the only suitable answer to this particular problem. Anything else is generally a compromise. Someday, somebody will invent a dynamic dedicated hood for zooms, so that the length and shape changes as you zoom :-) There are two brands that make zoom rubber hoods, Hoya and Hama. Hoya is lighter and starts at 35mm (to 210mm) while Hama is sturdier and starts at 24mm (to 210mm). Hoya is easier to use, because Hama ask you to unflod part of the rubber to get some of the lenghts. But they are not as dynamic as I and you would like, Cotty... Andre --
Re: lens hoods (shades)--cool site DOF/FOV/... calc
Friday, December 27, 2002, 2:16:10 AM, Paul wrote: PFS I came across a nice illustrated discussion of lens hood geometry: PFS http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html I couldn't resist writing few more messages before leaving... Hi Paul, thanks for the link. Very useful site! For others, don't forget to see the whole optics section of the site, it has articles on many aberations and also includes a simply GREAT program for calculating Depth of Field, angle of view, depth of focus, et cetera, even among different film formats. The best DOF calc I have seen so far (the better theoretically gifted than me can assess if the equation the guy uses are correct, as he clearly states all the equations in the docs. I am inclined to believe him though). Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: lens hoods (shades)--cool site
Hi Len, I had no problem downloading the PDF Bob - Original Message - From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:23 PM Subject: RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site A nice reference Paul. Thanks. The PDF IRL returns Access denied but I just saved the whole page from IE. Len --- -Original Message- From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 7:16 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss' Subject: lens hoods (shades)--cool site I came across a nice illustrated discussion of lens hood geometry: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html or in PDF at http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood/lenshood.pdf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site
That's amazing, Bob! I went back and tried a couple of more times with IE and it still denied me access. So I tried my alternate browser, Netscape 7, and it downloaded it without any problem. Gets a guy to thinking, doesn't it? I've run into some sites that deliberately code to hinder IE users and I know some that do the same for Netscape users but it could still have been something accidental. I use IE 6.0, BTW. Len --- -Original Message- From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: lens hoods (shades)--cool site Hi Len, I had no problem downloading the PDF Bob - Original Message - From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:23 PM Subject: RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site A nice reference Paul. Thanks. The PDF IRL returns Access denied but I just saved the whole page from IE. Len
Re: lens hoods (shades)--cool site
Hi Len, I use IE 6.0 as well. Bob - Original Message - From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:42 PM Subject: RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site That's amazing, Bob! I went back and tried a couple of more times with IE and it still denied me access. So I tried my alternate browser, Netscape 7, and it downloaded it without any problem. Gets a guy to thinking, doesn't it? I've run into some sites that deliberately code to hinder IE users and I know some that do the same for Netscape users but it could still have been something accidental. I use IE 6.0, BTW. Len --- -Original Message- From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: lens hoods (shades)--cool site Hi Len, I had no problem downloading the PDF Bob - Original Message - From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:23 PM Subject: RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site A nice reference Paul. Thanks. The PDF IRL returns Access denied but I just saved the whole page from IE. Len
RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site
Wow! Score another one for the gremlins! Len --- -Original Message- From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: lens hoods (shades)--cool site Hi Len, I use IE 6.0 as well. Bob
Re: Lens Hoods
What's the idea behind contemporary lens hoods that look like a flower blossom as opposed to older style lens hoods like the collapsible rubber ones? More efficient. If the film surface was round, a round hood would be perfect. A square film format would asks for a square hood or a symetrical tulip hood. A rectangular film format like 24X36m asks for a rectangular hood or an assymetrical tulip hood. If you put a round hood on a 35mm format lens, it will be as long as the hollow of the tulip hood. All the petals are there to cut unwanted light from reaching the lens. Rectangular hood are as good but it's not always possible to reverse them on their lens in order to pack you kit, so round tulip hood are favored now. ANDRE -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Lens Hoods
coverage matches the rectangular view angles of the lens, thus providing better shade on the top and bottom of the image over a circular hood. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Lens Hoods What's the idea behind contemporary lens hoods that look like a flower blossom as opposed to older style lens hoods like the collapsible rubber ones? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery 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. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Lens Hoods
Yes! Absolutely! And the tulip hoods take into account that the diagonal is the widest angle, as well. Len --- - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:21 PM Subject: RE: Lens Hoods coverage matches the rectangular view angles of the lens, thus providing better shade on the top and bottom of the image over a circular hood. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Lens Hoods What's the idea behind contemporary lens hoods that look like a flower blossom as opposed to older style lens hoods like the collapsible rubber ones? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery 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. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
