My macros have an external hood. In the case of the Phoenix 100mm/f3.5, even with a well-recessed front element, such a thing seems justified. For the SMC lenses, it can't hurt and it can help and if I dump the lens, theres something on the front to take impact and mebbe keep it working well for another year or two.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >All my lenses have a lens hood fitted on them semi-permanently with >the exception of the A50/2.8 Macro, which has such a deeply inset >front element that for most purposes a hood is unnecessary. > >I use screw in metal lens hoods for every lens that was not supplied >with at least a rigid plastic lens hood. B&H Photo stocks "generic" >screw-in metal lens hoods (usually Kalt brand) for very reasonable >money (about $10 apiece). There are also tons of applicable lens >hoods available in good dealers' used bits bins ... I use a Nikon >HN-7 and an Olympus Zuiko 28/3.5 for two of my lenses (FA135 and DA21 >respectively) that I purchased for about $1 apiece that way. > >Good metal lens hoods for tele, normal and wide angle field of view >from B+W and other top brands cost $25-40. I have one of those in >tele model on the FA77. > >Godfrey > > >On Oct 24, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Dave Kennedy wrote: > > > >>Sounds like most people use the hoods to protect the lens, which begs >>the question: do you use hoods on *all* your lenses? I currently only >>have hoods on my DA18-55, and DA50-200. I don't have hoods for the >>primes. >> >> > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
