Would anyone have a PH-S49 clip-on hood and/or a PH-R49 screw-on hood?
I'd like to pick up both. So if you're willing to part with one, please
let me know.
--
Scott Loveless
www.twosixteen.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
One each of the following:
Takumar all metal hood for the 24-mm 3.5: Excellent cond. with original
case
Takumar all metal hood for the 20-mm 4.5: Excellent cond. with original
case
These hoods also work well on other lenses.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/hoods.jpg
$12.50 each +
Juan,
This is kind of interesting:
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/
I suppose a paper hood is better than no hood... Might be good to have
a couple folded in the camera bag, just in case.
Just for the record, gmail marked this message as spam... Probably
because you used word hood in the
HP make a paper called Tough Paper. it's basically a very sturdy
plastic that you can put through the photocopier. I'm going to print
out some of them lens hoods onto that.
Leon
http://www.bluering.org.au
http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
That is very cool. Thanks
This is kind of interesting:
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/
I suppose a paper hood is better than no hood... Might be good to have
a couple folded in the camera bag, just in case.
j
--
Juan Buhler
Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
That is very cool. Thanks for posting.
While reading the article it occurred to me that, instead of using paper,
some sort of plastic material could be used, resulting in a more permanent,
or certainly longer lasting, lens hood.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Juan Buhler
This is kind of
You could probably print it on paper and then trace it onto the side
of one of those plastic binders. It's soft plastic, sometimes black.
You could probably even make it so it's possible to unwrap the hood to
store it flat in your bag...
j
On 3/23/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pretty much what I was thinking ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Juan Buhler
You could probably print it on paper and then trace it onto the side
of one of those plastic binders. It's soft plastic, sometimes black.
You could probably even make it so it's possible to unwrap the hood to
Shel, if you print one be sure to add SHEL-O-VISION in big letters.
-Aaron
I quess Cotty's will be Canex.:)
Dave
Quoting Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Shel, if you print one be sure to add SHEL-O-VISION in big letters.
-Aaron
Equine Photography in York Region
- Original Message -
From: Juan Buhler
Subject: Printable lens hoods
This is kind of interesting:
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/
I suppose a paper hood is better than no hood... Might be good to have
a couple folded in the camera bag, just in case.
Cool.
I opened one in Photoshop
In addition, I've made some rear lens caps that are solidly cemented
together, allowing two lenses to fit in the space that one lens often
takes. The caps work very well and hold the lenses securely. Once you've
learned which combinations (tele + wide, with/without hood, for example)
fit in
I use the 2 rear caps as well, but had the epoxie let go 20 years ago.
(Yes, I had properly prepared the mating surfaces!)
Since then, I've gone with duct (duc) tape arounf the edges.
It works great and is easy to check if it is still holding tight.
Regards, Bob S.
On 12/25/05, Fred [EMAIL
After a bit of trial an error, I worked up a technique that results in a
very solid bond.
The lens caps are sanded down so that the mating surfaces are flat and
somewhat rough (80 grit paper, IIRC). I then apply an epoxy that comes in
two joined tubes and which is expressed with a single plunger
On 24/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
Is there some kind of mathematical formula?
HTH:
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Subject: Re: Lens Hoods - know your worst case
Perhaps, but if you don't stop down, you can't see the vignetting in
the image. Not enough DOF. Try it, you can see for yourself. Paul On Dec 25,
2005, at 12:30 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Correction, the worst case for hoods ( most likely
to cause
In a message dated 12/24/2005 7:44:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've got caps on all my hoods. They're easy to find. I get all of mine in
the supermarket - the plastic lids from various containers work very well.
Plastic caps from Hershey's chocolate syrup, and those
On Dec 25, 2005, at 4:34 PM, David Oswald wrote:
I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I
find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much
space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me
when I'm using the camera on the go.
I tend
, a Leica and a Pentax, so attaching a cap for each works out very
nicely.
There are some lens hoods that are telescoping, and will compact rather
nicely, and which can be used on many different lenses. These hoods are
not common, but I have seen them - I believe Bill Lawlor, who sometimes
drops in here
Mike Johnston wrote a good SMP column about flare, lens hoods, etc.]
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml
By the way, a common misconception about lenses is that you need the
longest possible hood to protect the lens. This isn't necessarily so.
With some lenses, acutely
the $$ for a wide variety of lens hoods, it's probably best to use
the deepest hood possible.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Mark Roberts
Mike Johnston wrote a good SMP column about flare, lens hoods, etc.]
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml
By the way, a common misconception
I have a lens hood, buy I hardly ever use it. Whenever I do use it, I
can never tell the difference in my pictures. What is the best
situation to use hoods in, and how do get the most out of this
accessory. So far, I know NOT to use it with flash and that it can
make my lens look bigger to
Use a hood all the time, except perhaps with an on-camera flash that it
might obstruct. The idea is to prevent light from hitting the lens at
obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At
least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the
difference in
:46:34 PM
Subject: Re: Lens Hoods
Use a hood all the time, except perhaps with an on-camera flash that it
might obstruct. The idea is to prevent light from hitting the lens at
obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At
least, it can cause some loss of contrast
I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only
exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in
flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is).
My lens suite with hoods:
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lenshood-lineup-1845.jpg
Godfrey
On Dec 24, 2005, at
In a message dated 12/24/2005 12:46:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At
least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the
difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late
Nothing wrong with rubber. But most rubber hoods are too short and too
wide to provide much real coverage. They're designed to be a one size
fits all solution. But any hood is better than no hood.
Paul
On Dec 24, 2005, 10:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/24/2005 12:46:13
The material from which a hood is made should have little or no influence
on performance, all else being equal. I prefer some rubber hoods to plastic
hoods, as plastic hoods often have a shiny or reflective inner surface. A
number of people have flocked their plastic hoods. Also, I have a strong
In a message dated 12/24/2005 7:17:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nothing wrong with rubber. But most rubber hoods are too short and too
wide to provide much real coverage. They're designed to be a one size
fits all solution. But any hood is better than no hood.
Paul
In a message dated 12/24/2005 7:20:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that's nice about round metal hoods is that they are easier to
use with a Pol filter. Mount the filter to the lens, the hood to the
filter, and then turn the hood to adjust the filter. Rubber
Shooting with the hood in place is the best way to check for
vignetting. Shoot a solid white surface with the lens at its smallest
stop. If you don't see any corner darkeness in the image, it's not
vignetting.
Paul
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shootin
In a message
This might get you started ...
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html
However, it's so simple to put a hood on a lens and snap a pic. Be sure to
focus to infinity and stop that puppy down to get a worst case scenario.
Might be good to check the hood with a filter attached if you ever
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only exception
is when it interferes with something (like the built in flash, possibly
... if I ever used it, that is).
I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it
difficult to live
You left out an important step, Paul ... ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
Shooting with the hood in place is the best way to check for
vignetting. Shoot a solid white surface with the lens at its smallest
stop. If you don't see any corner darkeness in the image, it's
Whoops. I always screw that up make sure you've focused close
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 12/24/2005 7:34:16 PM
Subject: Re: Lens Hoods
This might get you started ...
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics
I've got caps on all my hoods. They're easy to find. I get all of mine in
the supermarket - the plastic lids from various containers work very well.
Plastic caps from Hershey's chocolate syrup, and those from some Jelly
Belly jelly beans cans work great.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: David
David Oswald wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only
exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in
flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is).
I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find
Correction, the worst case for hoods ( most likely
to cause vignetting) is not close focus and small
apertures, it is with lens at infinity (widest angle
of view) and wide open ( optical path closest to
hood). It seems to me a common myth that stopped way
down and lens set to mimimum focus would
On Dec 24, 2005, at 7:34 PM, David Oswald wrote:
I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only
exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in
flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is).
I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I
I take the cap off before installing the hood and leave it off until I
remove the hood. Some of my hoods fit over the lenses in my case. I
have three or four others that fit one within the other. I think I have
eight hoods in my case, and they work with thirteen lenses.
Paul
On Dec 24, 2005,
Perhaps, but if you don't stop down, you can't see the vignetting in
the image. Not enough DOF. Try it, you can see for yourself.
Paul
On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:30 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Correction, the worst case for hoods ( most likely
to cause vignetting) is not close focus and small
If interested, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] off list. All plus shipping.
Three or more, discount 20%.
Lens Hoods
- AOC Takumar 58mm for 135 200- $5
- Super Takumar 49mm for 35mm- $3
- Minolta MD 49mm for 28- $3
- Nikon Nh-1 for 28- $3
72mm filters
- Generic Haze- $2
- Rokunar UV- $2
Hi,
While it's nice to be though of as being right, I'm not quite sure what I
was right about. Perhaps that metal lens hoods offer better protection in
a fall? I'm not sure I agree with that premise. A fall is a pretty random
act, and numerous things - surface upon which the object is dropped
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, mike.wilson wrote:
Hi,
Thinking (dreaming, more like) about how to become fabulously wealthy, I
wondered if there is a potential market for new lens hoods for DSLRs.
I assume that the original, 35mm coverage, lenshoods could now be
significantly extended
However the pentax hood on my 100mm f2.8M [49mm] finally broke yesterday
[not bad after 20 yaers] and I can't think of alogical replacement for that
.any body any ideas ?
Short of the obvious, an OM 100mm F2.8 hood seems ideal. It's a rigid rubber
type that won't
AM
Subject: Lens Hoods
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I always use a hood for the extra protection , as well as cutting down
fare, but find Pentax hoods pretty flimsy..
On my 24mm M [52mm] I have always used a Nikon HN1, not as nice looking
be able to use the Takumar hood for the 135/3.5
given Pentax's tendency of designing lens hoods to be used with filters a
polarizer, but I would check for vignetting first. They are both nice solid
metal screw-on hoods.
BUTCH
Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.
Hermann
Someday, somebody will invent a dynamic dedicated hood for zooms, so
that the length and shape changes as you zoom :-)
Andre wrote: There are two brands that make zoom rubber hoods, Hoya and
Hama.
--
Tamron made an ingenious rigid-plastic telescoping hood for its SP
70-210/3.5. The lens
Someday, somebody will invent a dynamic dedicated hood for zooms, so
that the length and shape changes as you zoom :-)
Andre wrote: There are two brands that make zoom rubber hoods, Hoya and
Hama.
--
Tamron made an ingenious rigid-plastic telescoping hood for its SP
70-210/3.5. The lens
I found that to be true with my Universa Press and the 100/2.8 lens. I still
have the hood in the hopes of someday replacing the camera.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW as good as the Mamiya 7 lenses
Another dumb question:
Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors or at night, or is
the hood only to prevent flare from sunlight?
Feroze
Feroze Kistan wrote:
Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors
or at night, or is
the hood only to prevent flare from sunlight?
Hi Feroze,
The simple answer is to use the lens hood for every single
shot. Always.
I'm not sure what the complex answer is. I'm just a simple
On 29 Jan 2003 at 15:12, Feroze Kistan wrote:
Another dumb question:
Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors or at night, or is the
hood only to prevent flare from sunlight?
Any light source outside the frame can promote flare (and inside the frame of
course), so the best
It's not a dumb question and I hope this isn't a dumb answer. I always
use a lens hood. SMC is great, but using a lens hood also helps to
reduce lens flare. It also keeps rain off the front element and
protects the front of the lens from incidental contact with hard
elements, unless, of
Feroze Kistan wrote:
Thanks guys for all the replies. I had assumed hoods are only
for sunlight, can studio lights or household lamps cause flare then?
Think of them as blinders, as on a horse. They will cause
*only* light rays coming directly from the framed image to
though and
these are 2 diffrent issues?
Feroze
- Original Message -
From: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: lens hoods
Feroze Kistan wrote:
Thanks guys for all the replies. I had assumed hoods are only
The camera's meter is only concerned with what the lens sees in it's
field of view. The meter does not differentiate between a 28mm or a
200mm. The lens hood, on the other hand, blocks extraneous light from
striking the lens at angles outside of the lens' field of view. This
extraneous
Message -
From: Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: lens hoods
The camera's meter is only concerned with what the lens sees in it's
field of view. The meter does not differentiate between a 28mm or a
200mm. The lens
Feroze Kistan wrote:
If you are using available light to take and indoor picture,
would you not than be limiting the amount of light reaching the
film, or is that the intention.
Limiting only in the sense that the lens accepts just
the light reflected directly from the
Unless I have a particular need for a filter, I don't use one. Most of
us aren't going to spend the $50-70 that a good filter costs just to
protect our lenses. Your UV filter may have added to your problem if
it was one of the cheap off-brand filters. As tough as SMC coating is
supposed to
: lens hoods
Unless I have a particular need for a filter, I don't use one. Most of
us aren't going to spend the $50-70 that a good filter costs just to
protect our lenses. Your UV filter may have added to your problem if
it was one of the cheap off-brand filters. As tough as SMC coating
ALWAYS use a hood is sound advice.
Or, you could never use a hood.
I've done both over the years. Generally, the flare performance of a lens is
determined by its coatings. The better the coatings, the less necessary a
hood becomes. The worse the coatings, the less a lens hood is going to be
ALWAYS use a hood is sound advice.
Well, that sound clever, but what about the risk for vignetting (or what
it's called)? Last autumn I used my LX often together with the M 24/2.8
during a field trip in Greece. Plus a hood I 'thought' was suitable for the
lense. Great shots. But ... a lot of
Are you supposed to use a lens hood when shooting indoors
or at night, or is
the hood only to prevent flare from sunlight?
If I may offer the list my working practices
My lowest common denominator is: if in doubt, use the lenshood.
However, it is quite obvious that a lenshood serves more
Ahh, I started shooting seriously using SMC glass, I didn't know that you
shouldn't shoot into the sun until I met some Canon and Nikon shooters :-)
g
Ditto here, but with Contax T* lenses.
--Mike
Just moving onto zooms. Anyone thinking about the mechanics of a zoom
lens will have surely pondered that the lenshood of such an optic will
have to be a compromise. Now, if you have a 28-70 mm (say), then you will
have deduced that the(fixed plastic or metal) hood is really a 28mm hood
and
Friday, December 27, 2002, 2:16:10 AM, Paul wrote:
PFS I came across a nice illustrated discussion of lens hood geometry:
PFS http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html
I couldn't resist writing few more messages before leaving...
Hi Paul,
thanks for the link. Very useful site!
For
Hi Len,
I had no problem downloading the PDF
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site
A nice reference Paul. Thanks. The PDF IRL returns Access denied
and I know some that do the same for Netscape users
but it could still have been something accidental. I use IE 6.0, BTW.
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lens hoods
Hi Len,
I use IE 6.0 as well.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: lens hoods (shades)--cool site
That's amazing, Bob! I went back and tried a couple of more times with
IE
Wow! Score another one for the gremlins!
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lens hoods (shades)--cool site
Hi Len,
I use IE 6.0 as well.
Bob
What's the idea behind contemporary lens hoods that look like a
flower blossom as opposed to older style lens hoods like the
collapsible rubber ones?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit
What's the idea behind contemporary lens hoods that look like a
flower blossom as opposed to older style lens hoods like the
collapsible rubber ones?
More efficient.
If the film surface was round, a round hood would be perfect. A
square film format would asks for a square hood
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Lens Hoods
What's the idea behind contemporary lens hoods that look like a
flower blossom as opposed to older style lens hoods like the
collapsible rubber ones?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http
Yes! Absolutely! And the tulip hoods take into account that
the diagonal is the widest angle, as well.
Len
---
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Lens Hoods
coverage matches
I just received my 28mm Asahi Super-Takumar 28mmF3.5 screwmount lens for
my Spotmatic F. I also purchased an original Takumar 1:3.5 28mm square
lenshood. SInce I can't view the 24mm lenshood on the Net, I will
describe how this square hood fits.
I beleive that this lenshood is made of alumunium
the filter?
--
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:23:00 -0500
From: Robert Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 24mm Lens Hoods
I use the Hama rectangular on a 24mm f2.8. Works very well except for
on problem. If you have a filter on the lens it clamps onto the filter
r
It's a great lens - you should find it to be very handy.
Paul M. Provencher
(ppro)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Bob, would I be correct to deduce that your 24/2.8 was
designed with close-to-no "shelf" between the focusing ring and the filter?
The lens (A 28mm f2.8) has enough barrel protruding to mount the hood without a
filter, but the circular clamp on the Hama M52
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: 24mm Lens Hoods
: Hi,
:
: I just did a few quick tests on a lens hood for the K24/2.8, and for
: the time being I'm not going to buy the HAMA hood. I'd totally
: forgotten to check the Nikon hood compatibility chart I made a while
: Re: 24mm Lens Hoods
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:04:15 -0500
Shel,
Unrelated, but it can be used with the 28-70 F4 also. It does not
vignette, but I'll have to try your filter stack test.
l8r,
Douglas E Harmon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://personal.mia.bellsouth.net/~genius91/
- Original Message
Hi Doug ...
You might also try the HN-3 hood on that 28~70. The HN-3 is a
little deeper and a scosh narrower than the HN-2 (it vignettes on
the 24mm) and was designed to fit the Nikon some 35mm Nikon lenses,
both prime and zoom. My preliminary check shows that it probably
doesn't vignette on
Hi Rob ...
Sure thing, however, since I made it for my own use, it's rather
rough. Perhaps I can finish it up a bit and post it to the list or
make it accessible on my home page.
Basically, it provides the thread diameter and the Nikon lens for
which the hood was designed, along with the Nikon
.
l8r,
Douglas E Harmon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://personal.mia.bellsouth.net/~genius91/
- Original Message -
From: Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: 24mm Lens Hoods
: Hi,
:
: Do you find the Nikon HN-2 hood to be superior
previous message was ment to be directed to Doug.
From: "Douglas E Harmon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 24mm Lens Hoods
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:52:47 -0500
To Paul,
As fas as in use, I would say that they should work the s
Douglas E Harmon wrote:
Speaking of hoods, I just picked up a Takumar 28mm 3.5 hood. I plan to
use it with the K lens.
Well, good luck g. You'll find that the hood for the Takumar 28mm
lenses won't fit on the K-series lenses. The barrel diameter of the
K lenses are greater than the
Shel,
HUH? Let me clarify my earlier statement. It is the hood for the 49mm
version of the 28mm 3.5 not the 58mm. Also should specify M series. I am
quick to type but slow to proof read. ;)
L8r,
Douglas E Harmon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://personal.mia.bellsouth.net/~genius91/
- Original
Does anyone know if the Tak 24/3.5 hood will fit on a K24/2.8?
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are no rules for good photographs,
there are only good photographs.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
Wow! You found the same dealer I did. That's good! Now we both
know.
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 24mm Lens Hoods
"
From: "Shel Belinkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone know if the Tak 24/3.5 hood will fit on a K24/2.8?
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
yes, I know.
The Tak 24/3.5 hood (58mm) fits perfectly on the K 24/3.5 (58mm) , but not
on the K 24/2.8 (52mm)
George
-
This message is
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 24mm Lens Hoods
My description of the HAMA's operationI wasn't quite right.
You can clamp it anywhere over the frontmost part of
the lens barrel. By
frontmost part, I
Yep--that's my HAMA, all right. Ignore what the description says; the hood
does not snap on, it clamps on, just behind the filter (not, as I wrote
earlier, around the filter).
--
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I found a dealer that carries what may be the hood Paul mentioned.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
{snip]
I found a dealer that carries what may be the hood Paul mentioned.
http://www.dotlinecorp.com/dl_cat_A/-A08_lenshood.html
I'm not sure if this is the hood, nor can I determine exactly how it
attaches to the lens
Here is one USA source for Hama lens hoods. I've never done
business with them but it appears that you can order online.
http://www.dotlinecorp.com/dl_cat_A/-A08_lenshood.html
Len
---
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow
Len Paris wrote:
Yep, by golly, Dotline seems to have a picture of the very hood
and cap style you are telling us about. Good deal! I think the
rectangular hoods may do a better job than the tulips, though
I'll have to try them to be sure.
I use the Hama rectangular on a 24mm f2.8. Works
95 matches
Mail list logo
