Lens Hoods

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>There are many types of lens hoods out there, But I wish to stick two type's only,<br>

The Petal hood and the Metal round hood :<br>

Since I got the 35-105 mm lens without a hood , I am wondering if those Petal hoods are<br>

worth it, since there have been times when my petal hood on my 17-85mm lens would<br>

work against me ! Mostly when using a flash I would end up with a Lens hood shadow in the foto!<br>

Have any of you folks found one better than the other: Thanks for you time :</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>First, get the flash off of the camera. Otherwise, either style hood may work fine for you. For indoor work I like the compendium (accordion) hood which can be extended as required. I had a collapsible hood for some of my Leica lenses which was rather convenient. Today I tend to use the manufacturer's recommended hood and keep it on all the time when the lens is in use. I suspect that the ideal shape for a lens hood is rectangular with rounded corners. (I only had one of those.) All other shapes are a compromise, and the longer the better!</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>35-105 mm lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's fairly important to say WHAT 35-105mm lens you're talking about. From the discussion of the "17-85mm" I'm guessing this might be a topic more for the EOS forum rather than Classic Manual Cameras, albeit that people are (usually) so much nicer here. ;)</p>

<p>A petal style hood will NOT work with any lens on which the front elements rotate as the lens focuses. Moreover, a petal hood is normally carefully tailored to the specific coverage of a <em>particular</em> lens, so is usually not easily transferred to another lens, even when it does not rotate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there have been times when my petal hood on my 17-85mm lens would<br /> work against me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So long as the hood is the one made for that lens and it is actually correctly mounted, this should not be possible. You normally have to take off any lens hood for on camera flash, especially if the subject is close. As is so often the case, the problem is not with the hood, per se, but with how you are using it.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>JDM von Weinberg I use the 17-85mm lens only as a sample for a problem to avoid : Thanks<br>

35-105mm lens is for another camera, that would fit in to the classic manual camera area:</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Ah, but Lauren, you still don't tell us WHAT LENS IT IS, which is <em>still</em> an important piece of information.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I have a Maxxum 35-105mm F3.5-4.5 famous for having lots of flare. The Dyxum forum say no hood can really helps and I concur</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> its a Hoya 35-105mm F-3.5 lens for use with pentax cameras now I think I can understand the need for that information<br>

Thanks JDM</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Lauren, I'm guessing <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/PENTAX-P-K-MT-35-105mm-Macro-Zoom-lens-HOYA-JAPAN-/380261370398?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5889580a1e">this</a> is your lens with the 72mm filter size. I would encourage you to submit it to the <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/reviews-Miscellaneous-Lenses-for-Pentax-zooms.html">pentaxforums third-party lens review database</a> as it doesn't appear to be listed now. I have a Pentax-A 35-105/3.5 which is a little newer (introduced in early 80's rather than late 70's!) and smaller (has 67mm filter size) but similar speed & focal range. I think you'll find that you can't put a very deep hood on it without vignetting at the wide end but it still may offer some protective benefits and improve contrast a bit by blocking light from the side. No hood helps flare when the light source is in the frame. If you're only shooting it digitally, the crop factor works in your favor for using a slightly more aggressive (deeper) hood.</p>

<p>Note that you may not see the blackened corners in the viewfinder if your camera doesn't have a full-coverage viewfinder, you'd need to look at pictures (easy enough on digital), check both ends of the zoom (but most likely a problem at 35mm). Note that since the hood is mounting on the filter threads, including a filter will increase the likelihood of a problem.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I suspect that the ideal shape for a lens hood is rectangular with rounded corners. (I only had one of those.) All other shapes are a compromise, and the longer the better!"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The petal hoods are usually designed for essentially that same coverage but aren't as bulky. I usually only see rectangular hoods for relatively compact lenses. In either case, as JDM noted, both types require non-rotating front elements.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>Good temporary hoods can be custom made using black construction paper and tape.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Bob makes a good point. A series of templates for specific lenses is to be found at <a href="http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/">http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/</a>.</p>

<p>There are more, just Google™ <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=papeer+lens+hoods&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=hxv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&&sa=X&ei=KDiBTKedJIzSnger-6R3&ved=0CCEQvwUoAQ&q=paper+lens+hoods&spell=1&fp=c861950ee817c867">paper lens hoods</a> and you'll find more.</p>

<p>Things like paper cups painted black are also de rigueur in some settings. (see SP's posts on Bangalore).</p>

<p>Finally, foldable rubber hoods that screw into the lens filter threads also are very handy and some can be adjusted for different focal lengths and still take a lens cap. Here is one that I have used and there is a 72mm size for $8 if that is the size you need (<a href="http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/lenshoods.aspx">http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/lenshoods.aspx</a>)</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Gentlemen: I believe we have gone off track, My question pertained to Petal Hood versus Solid Hood<br /> I had wish to know if one was better than the other, that was the basic question. Have looked closer at the lens that's coming and I may not need a hood since the lens is recessed , Will know when it gets here:</p><div></div>

[chuck_pere]

<p>You may have seen it but if not this article might help:<br>

<a href="http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenshood.html">http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenshood.html</a></p>

 

[lauren_macintosh]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=318892">Chuck Pere</a>: thanks for the web page</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>John- which version of Maxxum 35-105 are you thinking of: the orginal or the compact "i" series? I know the orginal performed better optically, but I don't remember which one had the most flare.<br>

Lauren- potentially the petal hood could do more for wide to tele zooms because the part that blocks light can extend further without image cut-off. Of course it has to be oriented properly. On my lenses that have this hood the top and bottom of the hood extend further out than the sides. For long tele zooms it usually makes no difference. I've found that (at least on my Sigma zooms) that I can twist the hood slightly in one direction to improve flare control under difficult lighting. I've visited that template website before and those templates are a good alternative if you can't find an orginal hood. Good luck.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>Use a soft rubber lens shade, if you bump into something (which you certainly will do), the rubber absorbs the shock, NOT THE CAMERA. </p>

<p>Lynn</p>