« Weese in Wisconsin, Part Deux | Main | Random Excellence: Alfred Palmer »

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Comments

A nicer, slightly smaller hood for the Lumix G 14mm and 20mm lenses is a metal screw-in 'wide angle' hood sold on eBay by seller heavystar. It's compact, always on, does not vignette, and is flocked nicely for effectiveness.

Thanks, Carl!

The same trick works nicely on the NEX 16mm lens. Any generic 49mm thread lenshood for a 50mm lens will work but nothing is quite as nice as a Ihagee Exakta rectangular hood!

Query: in the case that the hood is designed for a wider FOV than the lens is mounted on, is there any benefit to having the hood at all?

They certainly aren't the most good-looking hoods, but when I have a new lens, getting a matching collapsible rubber hood is a must for me.

Having to switch lenses can already be a pain; switching lenses and having to screw-in the hood is just unnerving.

Maybe I am just clumsy, but I used something similar on the M-Rokkor 40/2 and constantly got "vignetting" from my finger pushing the rubber inside the lens. I stopped using it and bought a BW 46 metal lens hood for normal lenses. It is light, the finish is first-rate and it even looks great when mounted. Moreover it improves the handling of such tiny camera-lens combos (like the CLE with 40 Rokkor) a lot without making them bulky, something Mike already mentioned at times.

Peter,
Yes, because "radically impinging" light (i.e., light coming in from the sides) is one of the worse sources of flare.

Also, it serves of the main functions of lens hoods, which is to protect the lens from being bumped.

Mike

Mike,

As much as I preach and practice lens hood mania, I'm still a cheap-skate at heart. Er, make that frugal. After getting an EPL-2 kit in April (without hood, of course-boo camera manufacturers) I devised a 'frugal' alternative. Two step-up rings, 37-43 and 43-52, work quite well and look like an extension of the lens. Three rings would work better, but I planned on using some old 52 filters I have laying around and guess-timated that would put them out into the field of view. An added benefit is lost 52 caps are easier and cheaper to replace.

Thomas

Thomas - I did something similar with my EP2 and its 14-42mm lens. I got a 40.5-58mm adapter, 58mm being exactly the same diameter as the rest of the lens. I have lots of caps and filters in that size and it looks great.

I know this sounds backwards, but it works and pretty well at that. I put a UV filter on the front of my 14mm Panasonic and then a 46mm-37mm step-DOWN ring on the front of that. The angle of view of the 14mm does not reach out to the edges of the step down ring, but the ring works well to prevent light hitting the filter. I've been tempted to step down a bit more from 37mm just to see how far I can push it. I've also been tempted to smash the glass out of the filter and just use the cobbled-together tube assembly as a light funnel. I've never understood why hoods go out instead of in. Unless it's the bounce angle they're thinking about. Splitting hairs at that point.

I'm a fan of collapsible rubber lens hoods by Hama.

Hugh,

That's da bomb!

Thanks to both of you! As it happens I have these two lenses on order and was wondering which hood to use.

Just to clarify, the hood is designed for a lens with a *narrower* field of view, but the small diameter of the actual glass on these lenses lets you get away with it. In fact, the only way you could get more effective shading would be with a rectangular hood. These are so close to cutting into the field of view that if you mount a UV filter and then add the hood, you will get corner cutoff. So if you're the belt-and-suspenders type, you'll have to choose just one form of protection here.

FYI, the Contax G system hoods (three in all) are 46mm threaded and can also be fitted with 55mm pinch-type lens caps. Very tidy.

Cheers,

Rick

The comments to this entry are closed.