Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:51 PM 11/6/96 +0100, you wrote: >Charles E. Love, Jr. wrote: > >> Isn't it interesting that, at these stratospheric prices, lots of M lenses >> have cheap plastic hoods that are hard to get on and off--e.g. the 21 2.8 > >I'd rather have a hood that's hard to get on and off than one that's >easily to remove and falls of at the slightest knock. >About the plastic, well yes I do argee with you. But on the other hand I >don't think it's possible to make a metal lenshood in Leica's >rectangular shape and still keep the price reasonable. > >Bert > Leica's prices aren't "reasonable," by any stretch of the imagination--if you cannot afford to put a decent hood on a $2000 lens, something is wrong. Also, there are lots of cheaper lenses (non-Leica) that have decent hoods. For example, I have Pentax 67 lenses, and the hoods are much easier to use and better built than the Leica M 21 and 28 hoods; some are even metal! Leica itself has built some pretty good ones too--e.g. the old R 19 2.8, and the current Summicron 35 F2. My objection isn't to the plastic, but to the low quality, deformation, and overly tight fit of the 21 and 28 hoods, as well as the original 75. I think the theory behind the wide angle hoods is good--the spring and slot business, making them lock on--but the execution is poor on the 21 and 28, excellent on the old R 19. The original hoods for the 21 and 28 were so thin and flexible that they deformed when I tried to put them on and off--the redesigns added some ribs to make them somewhat stiffer, raising their performance from "F" to "D-" in my book. Sorry for the waspish tone of this--but cutting corners on such an expensive and generally well-made product does irritate me! Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. 517 Warren Place Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-7338 CEL14@CORNELL.EDU