Nothing wrong with rubber. But most rubber hoods are too short and too
wide to provide much real coverage. They're designed to be a "one size
fits all" solution. But any hood is better than no hood.
Paul
On Dec 24, 2005, 10:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/24/2005 12:46:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At
least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the
difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late to
go back and put the hood on. Use the hood. Many of us try to find hoods
that offer even more protection than the original equipment version.
For example, I use a hood originally meant for a Takumar 135 with my FA
50 when mounted on the *istD. It provides optimum protection, and with
the reduced FOV of the digital camera, it doesn't vignette. Hoods are a
good thing.
Paul
==========
What about rubber hoods? I got one for my Canon 50mm 1.8 because it was
cheaper. I was happy to find it was better than I thought it would be.
Of course,
it's a short lens.
So what's the take on rubber hoods? (I have one other lens without a
hood.
Although, come to think of it, I haven't played around and seen if one
of my
existing hoods would work.)
Marnie aka Doe
