On May 17, 2012, at 15:46 , steve harley wrote: > on 2012-05-17 15:06 P. J. Alling wrote >> Which would be perfect for film, > > i thought the OP wanted one for film > >> but for digital the lens hood from a 43mm >> limited would be preferable, though even that might be too short to be really >> effective. > > wouldn't it also depend somewhat on how the lens body winds up positioning > the hood with respect to the lens itself? > > for myself, the hood i mentioned is just what i happen to have with the FA 28 > came my way recently — not an ideal hood, but it still protects the lens from > knocks, which is important for me, and shades the lens much better than no > hood at all
It has come to my attention that the DA tulip style lens hoods were carefully designed to be another source of revenue for Pentax, or whomsoever happens to own the name at the moment. I have repaired my 60-250 / 50-135 lens shade multiple times after it was broken by hitting it against some immovable object. Even when carrying the camera upside down so it lays next to the hip instead of sticking out 6+ inches, the shade gets hit when you bend over without restraining it, or it hits your hip-bone too hard. This can even happen when the shade is reversed. And when breaking, it can (and has) break off the ridge/channel (also plastic) of the lens barrel. IF you find the parts when this happens, you can glue them back on. Until the next time. I finally lost a vital piece of my hood last week. There is no repairing it. The parts of the shade that take the shock of hitting a lip of the tulip against something are entirely too delicate , they are in fact the thinnest weakest parts of the units. And it is those parts that are a real problem to repair with superglue and some sort of reinforcing mesh or sliver of wood. This hood, a complex piece of plastic, sells for $64.00 from Pentax. Lest you think the cost is due to the hood's shape or size (67 mm), that is the same price as the 49mm hood for the DA 50-200mm, which is round, no tulips. But the D-FA 100mm Macro, which uses a 52mm round hood, only costs $40.00. The difference? We are being charged a $14.00 premium for the Filter Access Door on the former, which in itself makes these hoods much more delicate. Before my hood broke for the first time, that door was knocked out several times, with no harm. Making a hood to incorporate this access panel turns one of the thinnest sections of the hood's structure into relying on that access door to absorb the shock. It doesn't though. One would hope that Pentax sees fit to reduce the price on these items so we can afford to display the Pentax Logo on our lenses as well as the camera.. Pentax will lose out on these steep cost of using their premium lenses, as many of us will turn to aftermarket solutions for our hoods - or use liberal amounts of duct tape on our pretty Pentax glass, using the phrase "Yes, it's a great lens, but Pentax makes the flimsiest lens hoods, and want's way too much money for them." when asked by other photographers "Why the duct tape?". Are you listening, Pentax? Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
