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
--
I completely agree with Winsor. Too many options means too much
hassle and lots of money spent. My shots were better before, when I
didn't even know what a hood was. But now all that is over. I won't
let the gear go down on me no more! Eh, well maybe just one more
lens... with original hood of course.
Henrik
< 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 >
|