>I have two Olympus hoods for my 85/f2. The only difference is that the
(newer?)
one lists the 40/f2 as well as the 85/2 and 100/2.8, the other one
only the 85
and 100 (moulded list). So flare must come from somewhere else, maybe SC
instead
of MC?
mvh / regards
Roger Key
I could never understand how one hood could work effectively on three
lenses of such widely spaced focal lengths - 40 and 100?! It must look huge
on a 40mm. But mine claims all three lengths too and if Oly says it's
true...
AndrewF
I don't really think Olympus takes hoods seriously, except for the
one on the 35-70/3.6 which adjusts the angle depending on the focal
length. If the hood is perfect on the 40/2, that is, it blocks all
light from outside the the diagonal angle(56 degees) of that lens
then it allows the 24 degree 100mm to be flooded with light outside
its field of view. The other thing that is half-a--ed in my opinion
is the variability of attachment including screw in(the wide angles),
clamp on(50/1.4), slide out(135/2.8) and bayonet(35-80/2.8). My 1964
Leica M3 had bayonet hoods that attached quickly and easily, the same
way for all the lenses, and each one seemed to be carefully designed
for the focal length and not to block the rangefinder windows. Maybe
Mr. Maitani, realizing that effectively shading the lens with a hood
is a crapshoot anyway, decided that it was better to shoot without
one and pay attention to the light falling on the lens with every
shot than to spend a lot of effort on something that even with the
best design would not be effective in every instance anyway. I know I
paid more attention when I shot without a hood than I do now. So you
get afterthought hoods for those, like me, who insist on them.
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|