Hey Dan, Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't think we ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm looking at my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design this lens has a very thick and long hood. I cannot see a reason for anything additional. However, I can see it if you are referring to a hood that isn't of real benefit of shading the lens, but needs one for 'protection' then sure. But I'll just stick to what I know, Pentax doesn't list one for it like every other lens that doesn't have one built in, even the cheapest consumer zooms. They told me it doesn't need it. I respect them. In class we discussed lenses and the instructor also said because of the construction of true macro lens, a hood is not necessary. In any case, I'm interested to hear your reason why it does. I have never had trouble with it in that respect (usage, just not people telling me so).
Spill yer guts Dan ;-) Regards, Brad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro > > On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:49 PM, Brad Dobo wrote: > > > I talked to Pentax on this one and they don't make a hood for the lens, > > because it really is not needed at all. I have the FA version. > > Putting a > > UV type filter on will not be protecting the front element anyhow, and > > with > > the SMC is not needed. In fact, you would just degrade the image, and > > what > > am image that lens can make! Use it as is and enjoy the view, so to > > speak > > ;-) > > > > Brad. > > > > They are wrong. It does need a hood. > > Dan Scott >
