Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: metal vs plastic/rubber
From: Buzz Hausner <>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:58:41 -0400

I agree with you Jim, but the shades you mention are a big step up from the
collapsible rubber shades provided with the lenses for the CL.  I don't
believe that all shades be metal, only that they be functional.


- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brick []
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 1:44 PM
Subject: [Leica] RE: metal vs plastic/rubber

At 12:03 PM 6/7/00 -0400, Dan Cardish wrote:
>What precisely is the problem with the rubber collapsable hood that came
>with the tele-elmarit-M?  It's lightweight, seems to shade the lens
>properly, and gives without being damaged when bumped into something.  Why
>must EVERYTHING associated with a camera be made out of metal?
>Dan C.


I love the plastic/rubber lens shade/cap on my 24 & 35 ASPH lenses. I also
like the plastic lens shades on all of my Hasselblad lenses. They don't
chip or scratch and they don't mark-up lenses and bodies when they happen
to bump or rub against them.


Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <> (Re: [Leica] RE: metal vs plastic/rubber)