Yes, with a filter, I can see a need for the hood. Dan where are you, clear up this mystery! ;-)
Brad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:00 PM Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro > Perhaps Dan was refering to when a filter was used. But I suppose you can > use whatever 58mm hood you found. I tried the A*85/1.4 67mm hood with > step-up ring and it worked fine, but I have never actually used it in > practice. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > >Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't think > >we > >ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm looking > >at > >my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design this > >lens has a very thick and long hood. I cannot see a reason for anything > >additional. However, I can see it if you are referring to a hood that > >isn't > >of real benefit of shading the lens, but needs one for 'protection' then > >sure. But I'll just stick to what I know, Pentax doesn't list one for it > >like every other lens that doesn't have one built in, even the cheapest > >consumer zooms. They told me it doesn't need it. I respect them. In > >class > >we discussed lenses and the instructor also said because of the > >construction > >of true macro lens, a hood is not necessary. In any case, I'm interested > >to > >hear your reason why it does. I have never had trouble with it in that > >respect (usage, just not people telling me so). > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail >
