Hi Paul, the DA16-45 takes a 67mm sized thread, but I just fiddled a bit and found that using a hood with a diameter as small as 58mm will work, depending on the other dimensions of the hood. A quick look through Boz's site suggest that the 67mm bayonet hood from the 24-90 might be a possibility. Using a quickly cut piece of back construction paper, it looks like the standard hood can be almost 1/2-inch deeper all around and show no signs of vignetting - although the test and measurements are really rough, it's clear to me that there's definitely room for significant improvement.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > 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. > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
