Winsor wrote:
I don't really think Olympus takes hoods seriously, except for the
one on the 35-70/3.6 which adjusts the angle depending on the focal
length. If the hood is perfect on the 40/2, that is, it blocks all
light from outside the the diagonal angle(56 degees) of that lens
then it allows the 24 degree 100mm to be flooded with light outside
its field of view. The other thing that is half-a--ed in my opinion
is the variability of attachment including screw in(the wide
angles), clamp on(50/1.4), slide out(135/2.8) and
bayonet(35-80/2.8). My 1964 Leica M3 had bayonet hoods that
attached quickly and easily, the same way for all the lenses, and
each one seemed to be carefully designed for the focal length and
not to block the rangefinder windows. Maybe Mr. Maitani, realizing
that effectively shading the lens with a hood is a crapshoot
anyway, decided that it was better to shoot without one and pay
attention to the light falling on the lens with every shot than to
spend a lot of effort on something that even with the best design
would not be effective in every instance anyway. I know I paid more
attention when I shot without a hood than I do now. So you get
afterthought hoods for those, like me, who insist on them.
Hmmm, we disagree on just about everything here. I think the
accessory Oly hoods that I have (8 models) are well designed and
matched. Two of the lenses for my Texas Leicas (Mamiya 6) have
bayonet hoods and I find them significantly more fiddley to attach
than screw-on hoods. I'm not crazy about the clamp-style but, at
least for some w/a lenses, I can see how they were necessary to
prevent vignetting while remaining small. The fact that I can nest
several round hoods makes them a better option than rectangular
hoods with very little trade-off in performance.
The 40mm hood is what makes that lens a joy to use (*much* easier
adjusting f-stops). And they nest together, retaining the
compactness. However, I do find the 40mm suffers from flair when
shooting into the sun -- no hood can solve that -- so don't.
Clyde,
I guess we do disagree in some areas and I almost did not reply
because I am so awed by your skills as a photographer.
I just don't see how you can say that a multi-purpose hood that does
an effective job on a 40 mm lens is "well designed and matched" to a
100mm lens. It is better than no hood at all on the 100, but not by
much. I suspect that you as a photographer you are always aware of
the limitations of your equipment and you compensate automatically.
The less skilled among us hope we are getting a little insurance from
flare with our hoods.
I agree that the Mamiya 6/7 bayonet hood is fiddly compared to a
Leica design which just slips around the end of the lens barrel and
the little fingers clamp onto the groove designed into the outside of
lens barrel for them. Simple. No arrow alignment. No turning. I
think that if screw threads were easier we would all be using screw
mount lenses.
The clamp-on type goes around the lens barrel like the Leica bayonet.
Both avoid vignetting. But the attachment is so lame. It has to be
the ultimate in fiddly. It has all the elegance and ease of use of a
radiator hose clamp on an automobile. The only thing missing is
having to use a screwdriver. Compared with the elegantly designed
camera/lens combination it is designed for it sure looks like an
after thought.
I agree with you about round v. rectangular hoods. Nesting would
require that they should all be one or the other. I have no
experience with rectangular hoods but it seems to me that correct
alignment to avoid vignetting would require a design that would be
fiddly to use. So I would also vote for round hoods with their minor
performance trade off.
But, all this is small stuff and none of this will prevent making
good pictures as you have proven over and over.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|