FWIW - I used a screw-in 'King'collapsible rubber hood - wide angle version
- until I got the real thing - no vignetting and very cheap. I'm using a
62mm version of the same item on a bargain Vivitar 19mm/3.8 I acquired - no
problem and I suspect I'd get away with one standard filter too. They cost
around US$10 or less here and in some ways are more convenient than the
standard 21mm hood - they don'r deform if squashed in the camera bag, for
one.
AndrewF
>Oh great, I've been keeping an eye out for a 21/3.5 lens hood, and now
>everybody wants one! ;-)
>There was one with at least a broken thumb screw on German ebay I should
>have bought.
>
>So I have a spare 28/2.8 rubber hood and spare 24/2.8 & 28/2 metal
>hoods. Does anybody know how far one of these would need to be cut down
>to work for the 21/3.5? Even just knowing the exact dimensions of either
>the srew-in or slip-on hood for the 21/f3.5 would be very helpful..
>
>Moose
>
>Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>I also think that the Olympus hood for the 21/3.5 does wonders,
>>especially with my SC sample.
>>
><snip>
>
>
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|