What you say makes sense. The hood has to be a little wider to be able to reverse around the body of the lens. I've got to do a little searching around, seeing how I don't have many hoods that aren't designed for a specific lens. My 77mm Heliopan will sit between the lens threads and the custom hood. I'll have to give that one a try just to see if it vignettes at all.
I had to quickly go try it - at the 45mm end it worked fine. At the 16mm end, it looked like I had put on one of those Cokin filters that makes you think you are looking through a rifle scope or something - very heavy vignetting. -- Bruce Friday, June 16, 2006, 4:04:23 PM, you wrote: SB> Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood: SB> One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that fit over SB> the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually poorly SB> optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by their SB> design in order to fit over the hood. This was made clear to me some years SB> ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were designed to SB> slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45. Even on SB> film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could often - SB> usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens. SB> I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the 16-45 SB> hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either SB> deeper or narrower, or both. So, IMO, a better hood may be available - the SB> standard hood can certainly be improved upon. Film (digital) at 11:00 <LOL> SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: Bruce Dayton >> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for >> flare. It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the >> sun in the image. As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it >> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the >> frame. If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare >> would go away. So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that >> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help >> enough. >> >> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing. On this lens, it >> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just >> outside it. It can be made to flare just about as easily as the >> 16-45, but at a different angle. >> >> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so >> the flare was mostly absent. Your shot has the sun just outside the >> frame and so it really showed. >> >> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot >> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax >> lens do just about the same thing. That is probably why I haven't >> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a >> movement to fix the problem. >> >> Thoughts? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
