T-O-K-I-N-A...
...not T-A-M-R-O-N
:-0
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tom Scales
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:06 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] Tokina 80-200 AT-X Lens Hoos (Was: Lenshood #s for
> Tokina AT-X 90mm & 28-85mm lenses?)
>
>
> I haven't a clue about where it was in the production run, as I bought it
> used from a list member, but my Tamron 80-200/2.8 uses a metal
> bayonet hood
> (82FH) and it works quite nicely. Serial number is 81xxx, so I don't know
> where that is --- did they make 100,000 of them or 1,000,000 of them.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > The MH-774 is a screw-on metal lens hood...At least the one for
> my 80-200
> > (OM mount) was. There were no bayonet lugs on the front of that lens.
> > Later AF 80-200s use the bayonet mount, but did the MF models ever get
> there
> > before they were discontinued? (Early AF models were also screw-thread
> for
> > the shades and the MH-774 was at one time shared by both the AF
> 80-200 and
> > 100-300.)
> >
> > As for plastic vs. metal...Up to the point of physical failure, plastic
> > hoods are probably going to maintain their shape (fewer dings
> and dents),
> > not get scratched, or get loose paint on the inside. In most cases I'd
> > prefer that the hood fail first...Failure of the hood probably
> means that
> a
> > lot of the energy will get absorbed by that hood failure. If I get a
> really
> > strong metal hood it will certainly transfer a lot of the energy to the
> lens
> > body. This is the argument for energy absorbing bumpers and
> crumple zones
> > on automobiles.
>
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|