With all that glass, it's important to try and buy a lens with the hood. The
difficulty in finding a hood, and the low incremental price of a lens with a
hood over a bare lens would lead me to never buy a bare lens. If you're
looking for a deal, I'd hunt for a lens with a broken or missing tripod foot
first, as the design of the tripod mount wasn't that good and tends to break
with fatigue. Substitution of a slighly-modified Olympus removable tripod ring
is a much better solution anyway.
Skip
----- Original Message ---------------
Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
From: Andrew Gullen <andrew.gullen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:35:53 -0500
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>on 2004/10/30 11:47 PM, John A. Lind at jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> I'm concluding from the remarks of others that the lens hood for the Tamron
>> 80-200 f/2.8 SP LD can be rather hard to find.
>
>How necessary is the hood (i.e., how flare-prone are they)?
>
>Andrew
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|