Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dante, by efficient I meant smaller volume than the plastic designs for similar function. The example I currently own is on the Elmar 24. Personally, I always have my lens hoods attached both for their original function and for the mechanical protection. No negatives at all there for me.I just don't see any reasons to NOT leave them on unless I am using a polariser of course. Personal opinion and preference certainly. I'd be very uncomfortable using that 16-18-21 without a hood for sure. I only tried one once. The front element is very exposed and you can't even stand it on its nose. I don't think that hood was their finest hour. I think that the Summarits have a screw on thread protector but then they don't come standard with a hood. I don't know about others (my Elmar 24 does not). On two occasions the front elements of my lenses have been saved from impact damage by the hoods presence. I'm currently in the process of waiting for a replacement for the plastic hood on my Summicron 28 ASPH. and you know how expensive these things are. It was accidentally broken by another shooter (not operating the squeeze tabs when removing it) which broke the locking parts and cracked the whole thing through. I much prefer the single piece thread on metal designs. YTMV Your threadage may vary. That Jupiter 3 hood looks like a venturi from a Sputnik booster rocket! Boyz with da hoodz Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 25 April 2010 00:29, Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net> wrote: > Do these have the same vulnerable outside threads that the Tri-Elmar > 16-18-21mm has? Is there some kind of cover that protects the threads when > the hood is off (the Tri-Elmar uses the hood for that purpose)? Of course, > the idea may be to leave it permanently mounted (which is curious - I never > get flare with my current ASPH, using no hood). > > I'm also having a hard time understanding why a threaded metal hood is more > efficient; it's ineffcient to sit there threading a hood on (the current 35 > ASPH hood has a lock ring, so it's marginally better), and the > manufacturing > efficiency has never to date been an issue for Leica. As for > substantiality... I know that there is an ethic in German industrial design > that metal/heavy=high quality, but I am not sure why from a functional or > mechanical standpoint metal would be more attractive than plastic. Metal > dents, it wears poorly, and it transmits mechanical shock into the lens > very > efficiently. And it blocks stray light no better than plastic does. > > I thought that the greatest achievement in Leica hood design was the 12585 > (35mm Summicron v4) and the equivalent for the pre-ASPH 35 Summilux, both > of > which were superbly engineered and made. The one for the (now penultimate > generation) ASPH Summilux is very nice, though not quite as convenient due > to the locking ring. > > But maybe the reason why this new hood gives me the creeps is that it looks > a little bit like the rubber(?) hoods that go with Soviet Jupiter-3 lenses: > > http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL740/2933453/22048104/368930854.jpg > > Dante > > NO ARCHIVE > >