I have some 67mm hoods for my 6x7 lenses. I'll have a look at them tomorrow. Paul On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
