I always try to have a hood on when shooting. It's as much protection
for the front of the lens as protection from reflections and flare.
As to the "protective" UV filter I gave that up many years ago. I'm not
sure who it was (probably Thomas Tomosy)
<http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Maintenance-Repair-Book-Comprehensive/dp/0936262869/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359245122&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+tomosy>
(and other similar camera repair books) who said that hoods are an
effective protector of lenses but that filters are more often the cause
of damage rather than the protector. Even if a filter is hit on the rim
it's likely that the glass will shatter and (being only a millimeter or
two from the front element) the glass shards from the shattered filter
become what damages the glass or coatings. And even a good filter has
at least some slight negative effect on image quality. (Remember Gary
Reese's lens tests with and without filters?) Anyhow my rule has long
been there is no filter installed unless it's actually doing something
for filtering light.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/26/2013 2:47 PM, JOHN DUGGAN wrote:
> Moose your post re: retro lens hood for Panasonic 20mm came at an
> opportune time. I had a near miss when my Panasonic 20mm lens "flew"
> in an upward arc out of my camera bag (I had pulled out a small towel
> to dry off my equipment in rainy conditions) and launched itself at a
> rock edging a path. Sod's law, the lens which was in its carry pouch
> hit the rock lens cap first, and bounced into the grass. Picked up
> lens, and then lens cap which was about 3' away. Only damage was a
> small area of 'bruising" on the front face where the lens cap had
> impacted! Glass and rest of lens was undamaged. I decided at that
> moment that a filter and lens hood was called for! Copying your idea
> I picked up a 46-49mm ring for $1 then added a 49mm UV filter from my
> Olympus collection. I looked in my box of Olympus hoods. as you said,
> my metal and chrome 50mm f1.4 fits well - but is rigid. The rubber
> equivalent -also thumbscrew- 50mm f1.4 or 35-70 f3.5-4.5 gives more
> impact protection. Best of all the 100mm f2.8mm gives a marginally
> longer hood and possibly better flare protection. However I have
> noticed a possible problem. If I screw the step up ring gently into
> place with the lens/ camera switched off and then switch the camera
> on I can screw the adapter about another 1/3rd of a turn or about
> .5mm Thus I feel that with the adapter ring screwed up tightly it
> stops the lens front retracting fully. Is this likely to be a problem
> long term? I suppose I could always cut a very thin gasket to fit
> between lens front and step up ring or take the finest of cuts off
> the rear corner of the adapter.
>
> Regards John Duggan, Wales, UK
>
>
> ________________________________ From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> To:
> Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday,
> 25 January 2013, 3:21 Subject: [OM] Classic Retro Lens Hoods
>
> OK, eat your hearts out,all you folks with generic, ersatz, faux
> Leica hoods on your µ4/3 lenses.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/WP_Gallery/?p=136>
>
> Classic Hooded Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|