>>Telescopic hood for zooms will also be very good, as zoom hoods are optimal
>>only for the wide focal length. I think of a telescopic hood for a 70-210
>>coupled with the zoom position. That will be great!, but will also be
>>expensive :-(
>>
>>The hood of the 28-135, for instace, is a very bad one for the 135mm
>>position. A cheap, collapsable rubber, standard 50mm hood, will be better
>>in this position.
>
>Pardon me if I'm being dense, but why is it "very bad" for tele?
>Provided there is no vignetting at the wide end, isn't the real issue
>the angle of the light source (sun) to the front of the lens? I can
>see that with telephoto focal lengths you could make use of a longer
>lens hood due to the narrower angle of view and thereby achieve more
>possible angles to the light source, but I cannot see how the lens
>hood optimized for the wide end (where it is most critical) could
>possibly be "bad" for the long end. Any protection is good.
Ok, you're right.
It will be better than nothing, and it will not vignete.
My point is that wide range zooms as the 28-135 have a hood designed for
28, so, at 135 give a protection way less optimal.
In fact, at 28mm it provides some protection but a low one.
A wide angle hood wich provides a good protection needs to be bulky.
So, using the hood of the 28-135 you get low protection at all focal lengths.
If you are only using the 28-135, perhaps it's a good idea to carry a cheap
ruber 50mm hood to provide more protection at 50mm and over.
>Ken Durling
Best regards
Vicente
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
