IMO, the rectangular hoods, not the square,k like they used to
make for the 50mm M lenses are the best. BTW, If someone has
one they want to sell please e-mail me.
--Tom
dosk wrote:
>
> Read an article in a photomag by an older, experienced writer whom I
> respect. He says these new tulip sha
On 7 Mar 2001, at 10:28, Bojidar Dimitrov wrote:
> Having just spent all of 60 seconds thining on this topic, and having done
> no experiments, my gut reaction is to disagree. The "tulip" shape is due
> to the fact that we are trying to cut out the potions of the light cone
> that are outside of
One reason I avoid zooms is the mental effort it takes to remember to
adjust their "adjustable" hoods. Even on a prime, if the hood is
collapsible rubber, I often forget to open it to its working position. So I
can't even count on it to protect the front of the lens in a fall.
The best hood for z
on 3/7/01 12:41 PM, dosk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I cannot follow your logic and understand almost nothing of
> what you're talking about here. The article I read had all kinds of flare
> tests performed, with results that stated that the "perfect" hood was
> definitely not...
Recently dosk wrote:
>
> Read an article in a photomag by an older, experienced writer whom I
> respect. He says these new tulip shaped "perfect hoods" are anything but!
> Seems their odd scooped-out shapes allow all kinds of flare and glare into
> the lens. Man says nothing beats a $5 (imperfect
Read an article in a photomag by an older, experienced writer whom I
respect. He says these new tulip shaped "perfect hoods" are anything but!
Seems their odd scooped-out shapes allow all kinds of flare and glare into
the lens. Man says nothing beats a $5 (imperfect?) rubber lens hood for
effectiv
6 matches
Mail list logo
