KD> On Fri, 11 May 2001 11:05:06 +0200, you wrote:
>>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.
KD> Again, pardon my ignorance, but do you mean like a very wide-mouth
KD> funnel? I'm picturing some of those huge cinema camera hoods...
KD> would you characterize them as "optimal?"
KD> I'm interested by this, and never did quite fully understand the
KD> rationale behind the tulip design. Why are the corners cut back if,
KD> like you say, the shade is treating the lens as though it were round?
KD> The cut corners imply an allowance for the rectangular negative. And
KD> why the lower petal other than reversability? Seems like most of the
KD> time light will be coming from above. The design is so widespread
KD> that I'm assuming actual research has been done.
Hello Ken,
Have you ever tried mounting the hood on your Tamron 20-40 not
the way it was planned? There is another possibility to mount
it so that the big "leaves" are diagonally placed. Then look
through your viewfinder and you know why they are usually in the
vertical.
--
Best regards,
Dieter mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
