[Eyewanders]

Just wondering what folks 'round here who use the 43 regularly think about this. I used to use the 43 on all my cameras and still do, though not as much since I've had it mostly permanently planted on my MZ-3 since picking it up early this past summer. The combination is a bit ridiculous in terms of IQ/size/weight/convenience.
I've pretty much *always* shot the 43 using the hood but it does make the package "thicker"... without the hood the combo is nearly pocketable so I figured I might just slap a UV filter on the front (**edit - for its protection benefit, not to somehow "replace" the hood) .... Any thoughts on how the 43 renders with and without the hood? These good old newer Pentax coatings are magic, but whatcha think?

---

Last edited by Eyewanders; 11-28-2015 at 05:49 PM.

[SpecialK]

I do not understand your thought that UV filter is any kind of substitute for a hood. That said, no, I would not "just slap a UV filter on the front".

[Alex645]

Just wondering what folks 'round here who use the 43 regularly think about this. I used to use the 43 on all my cameras and still do, though not as much since I've had it mostly permanently planted on my MZ-3 since picking it up early this past summer. The combination is a bit ridiculous in terms of IQ/size/weight/convenience.
I've pretty much *always* shot the 43 using the hood but it does make the package "thicker"... without the hood the combo is nearly pocketable so I figured I might just slap a UV filter on the front .... Any thoughts on how the 43 renders with and without the hood? These good old newer Pentax coatings are magic, but whatcha think?

Without a side-by-side comparison, with and without hood, shots without the hood look fine. But with a comparison, the hood almost always improves the contrast and color saturation because of the reduction of stray light. A simple demonstration is to cup both hands over your forehead (like a visor or a lens hood) and then take them away, and then back and forth. Athletes use eye black and caps for a reason, and although sometimes the difference is small, there is a difference.

Cons: Yes, hoods take up space, but they also add a measure of physical protection to the filter or front element. The only time I take mine off is when I may be using the built-in flash on a zoom lens shooting wide and fear the hood shadow. Also I think most hoods for wide-angle lenses are next to useless. I never use the 77mm hood on my 35mm 645 (equivalent to 21mm FF or 14mm APS-C) as it barely does anything other than look like I'm shooting with a black mushroom.

I also appreciate that the Pentax 18-55mm kit zoom has a lens hood with the little door to allow access to a polarizer ring. I only wish they included those hoods with the kit as they seem overpriced purchased separately.

[Eyewanders]

I do not understand your thought that UV filter is any kind of substitute for a hood. That said, no, I would not "just slap a UV filter on the front".

Protection only. I thought that would be self explanatory, sorry.

---------- Post added 11-28-15 at 01:22 PM ----------

Without a side-by-side comparison, with and without hood, shots without the hood look fine. But with a comparison, the hood almost always improves the contrast and color saturation because of the reduction of stray light. A simple demonstration is to cup both hands over your forehead (like a visor or a lens hood) and then take them away, and then back and forth. Athletes use eye black and caps for a reason, and although sometimes the difference is small, there is a difference.

Cons: Yes, hoods take up space, but they also add a measure of physical protection to the filter or front element. The only time I take mine off is when I may be using the built-in flash on a zoom lens shooting wide and fear the hood shadow. Also I think most hoods for wide-angle lenses are next to useless. I never use the 77mm hood on my 35mm 645 (equivalent to 21mm FF or 14mm APS-C) as it barely does anything other than look like I'm shooting with a black mushroom.

I also appreciate that the Pentax 18-55mm kit zoom has a lens hood with the little door to allow access to a polarizer ring. I only wish they included those hoods with the kit as they seem overpriced purchased separately.

Sure - I realize contrast is always improved while using one - I guess I'm just asking if anyone has experienced any flare or other problems with the 43 specifically when *not* using the hood. I expect not, but I've literally never taken mine off and have never wondered otherwise until now.

I never use the 77mm hood on my 35mm 645 (equivalent to 21mm FF or 14mm APS-C) as it barely does anything other than look like I'm shooting with a black mushroom.

That's funny.

[SpecialK]

Protection only. I thought that would be self explanatory, sorry.

Keep the lens cap on when not actively shooting.

[mikeSF]

The hood reduces contrast robbing stray light. To what degree depends on the specific situation. I would never recommend not using the hood with that lens.

[Eyewanders]

Keep the lens cap on when not actively shooting.

Ahhhhh... that's what those are for. :-/

---------- Post added 11-28-15 at 02:12 PM ----------

The hood reduces contrast robbing stray light. To what degree depends on the specific situation. I would never recommend not using the hood with that lens.

Thanks, yes I know what purpose a hood serves - but have you shot (the 43) without and noticed any severe flare, bloom, lack of contrast etc.?

Perhaps I'll simply pony-up and do some comparisons so I know what to expect. This little guy has a remarkable, biting and contrasty rendering to begin with.

[mikeSF]

Ahhhhh... that's what those are for. :-/

---------- Post added 11-28-15 at 02:12 PM ----------



Thanks, yes I know what purpose a hood serves - but have you shot (the 43) without and noticed any severe flare, bloom, lack of contrast etc.?

.

your OP sounds like you don't. If you are serious about your images, you would use a hood at all times, not when it fits in your pocket. There are no magic coatings in play here. ?

[todd]

i use a generic DA40 hood replacement, LN-RC49 (link below) and a generic 30mm pinch cap (on crop) with much pleasure compared to the FA43 hood.. It's inner rim only extends out slightly further than a filter..

here took a pic


Amazon.com : Professional Replacement Lens Hood LN-RC49 For Pentax DA 40mm F 2.8 Black MH-RC 49mm : Camera Lens Hoods : Camera & Photo

[Eyewanders]

i use a generic DA40 hood replacement, LN-RC49 (link below) and a generic 30mm pinch cap (on crop) with much pleasure compared to the FA43 hood.. It's inner rim only extends out slightly further than a filter..

here took a pic


Amazon.com : Professional Replacement Lens Hood LN-RC49 For Pentax DA 40mm F 2.8 Black MH-RC 49mm : Camera Lens Hoods : Camera & Photo

Thanks man - I've nearly grabbed one of those exactly for the 43 but am not sure it would work well on 135... that said, I don't know. Definitely more compact.

---------- Post added 11-28-15 at 02:56 PM ----------

your OP sounds like you don't. If you are serious about your images, you would use a hood at all times, not when it fits in your pocket. here are no magic coatings in play here. ?

Dude... I asked a specific question about a specific lens, sans hood. I was not attempting to start a diatribe about the technical advantages of shooting with one in general. When I am shooting seriously, for client work or important events, most all of my lenses get a hood. Your condescension, to be frank, is out of place, but thanks for taking the time to respond. Please lets not get into a tit-for-tat.

edit: (A better preamble to my OP may have been that I do a significant amount of one-pack travel where every ounce and cubic inch matters - I'm always looking for that sweet spot of form and function. Both are important to me - travel and images - and I fully realize there is a trade-off for loosing the hood; I am curious how much of one for *this* lens.)

[Kozlok]

Use a collapsible rubber hood. Provides protection, shade, and it's more compact. All around win.

[jab2980]

i use a generic DA40 hood replacement, LN-RC49 (link below) and a generic 30mm pinch cap (on crop) with much pleasure compared to the FA43 hood.. It's inner rim only extends out slightly further than a filter..

here took a pic


Amazon.com : Professional Replacement Lens Hood LN-RC49 For Pentax DA 40mm F 2.8 Black MH-RC 49mm : Camera Lens Hoods : Camera & Photo

Yup, this is without question the best answer. I too can verify that the DA 40 hood works perfectly on the 43.

[Eyewanders]

Yup, this is without question the best answer. I too can verify that the DA 40 hood works perfectly on the 43.

No vignetting on 35mm?

---------- Post added 11-28-15 at 08:55 PM ----------

Use a collapsible rubber hood. Provides protection, shade, and it's more compact. All around win.

I like this - I have one for a conversion lens that may even work - i'll have to dig it out.

[JPT]

I just did the following test.
- Put an F35-70 on my MZ-3
- Attached the DA 40 hood on the front
- Without taking a picture, I looked through the viewfinder to see where the vignetting started as I zoomed

I think my methodology is sound here, but I could be wrong. There is very clear vignetting at 35mm. It doesn't disappear from the viewfinder until about 45mm, and since the viewfinder only covers 92%, I imagine it would be present in the picture beyond that. So I think it's fair to say that the DA 40 hood won't work with that lens on film or digital FF, although it probably works just fine on APS-C. It's also quite a pricy accessory to buy on the off chance. Hope this helps.

By the way, that camera-lens combination must be really nice. I love my MZ-3 body, even thought to cost of developing makes me use it less than I'd like. In my case I almost always have the FA 35 attached.

[todd]

No vignetting on 35mm?

I just did the following test.

I just put FA43 + LN-RC49 on my ZX-5 again (which is almost at the end of the roll I've been shooting since I got this hood earlier this year and have some actual shots with this combo on the roll...) and put it up to a white monitor screen and see no vignetting through the viewfinder... I haven't seen it in the past either the couple times I've had it on the ZX-5 outdoors in daylight... But I am not disputing what JPT is saying that there may be some on the film.sensor..