on 3/7/01 12:41 PM, dosk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I cannot follow your logic and understand almost nothing of
> what you're talking about here. The article I read had all kinds of flare
> tests performed, with results that stated that the "perfect" hood was
> definitely not....
Hi Skip & all,
I am no expert on the hood but there are pros and cons on both types (tulip
and regular) of hood.
Tulip type is obviously to eliminate the vignetting at the wider end. But
it is a compromise and the problem is that at the longer end, those cut-outs
will often allow the stray light from the side. This problem becomes more
prominent on the zoom with 24mm wider end (it is a HUGE cut-out).
As much as I dislike the rubber hood, it does have an advantage (besides
acting as a protection from bumping etc) as it gives a full circumferencial
shade but you may have to fold it when going to the wider end. You may or
may not be able to see the vignetting depending on the depth of the rubber
hood.
OTOH, the tulip type does give the protection at the wider end from the
stray light coming straight down.
I understand that the new Pentax 24-90 has a "oval" tulip type hood which
will provide a better shade effect even at the longer end.
> > Man says nothing beats a $5 (imperfect?) rubber lens hood for
> > effectiveness...
I heard the same story from my favourite camera store. Did not remember the
reasoning but probably because it is "adjustable" although cumbersome.
Cheers,
Ken
-
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 .
