Okay, you may very well be right on this one. For example, I use the 135/3.5 Super Tak hood on my FA 50/1.4. As you said, there's frequently room for improvement. I think the lens is 62mm thread. I'll have to see what I have on hand in that size and try some alternatives. Paul On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood: > > One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that fit > over > the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually > poorly > optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by > their > design in order to fit over the hood. This was made clear to me some > years > ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were > designed to > slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45. Even > on > film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could > often - > usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens. > > I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the > 16-45 > hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either > deeper or narrower, or both. So, IMO, a better hood may be available > - the > standard hood can certainly be improved upon. Film (digital) at 11:00 > <LOL> > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Bruce Dayton > >> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for >> flare. It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the >> sun in the image. As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it >> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the >> frame. If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare >> would go away. So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that >> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help >> enough. >> >> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing. On this lens, it >> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just >> outside it. It can be made to flare just about as easily as the >> 16-45, but at a different angle. >> >> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so >> the flare was mostly absent. Your shot has the sun just outside the >> frame and so it really showed. >> >> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot >> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax >> lens do just about the same thing. That is probably why I haven't >> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a >> movement to fix the problem. >> >> Thoughts? > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
