F50 1.7 Hood?

troika · 03-26-2013, 08:13 PM

I have an in-bound F50 1.7, which I'm looking forward to. I've read that it doesn't need a hood because the element is recessed and I can see from pictures that it is compared to the 1.4 versions or either of the FA 50s. I've also seem some threads about which hoods people were using for these lenses without mention of the recessed element or the need for one.

Does anyone who has owned this lens have a strong opinion about whether it does or does not benefit from a hood of some kind?

Adam · 03-26-2013, 08:24 PM

I still think it would benefit from a hood. You can get a nice rubber one on ebay (some even exist specifically for this lens, I believe).

GabrielFFontes · 03-26-2013, 08:27 PM

Well, yeah, it does benefit from a hood, but not a LOOOT.
You could use a 135mm lens hood for this one.

troika · 03-26-2013, 08:44 PM

Thanks, guys.

Eulogy · 03-26-2013, 09:24 PM

I'd heard you could use a 49->28mm step down ring as an inverse hood with marvelous results. This is assuming it will function the same as the K/M/A/F/FA 1.4s. I'd say one could even attach a threaded hood, then apply the inverse hood in the inner of that one to provide "Maximum Coverage"

troika · 03-26-2013, 09:27 PM

I read that thread, but the photos were dead links, so I couldn't see what it looked like.

GabrielFFontes · 03-26-2013, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Eulogy

I'd heard you could use a 49->28mm step down ring as an inverse hood with marvelous results. This is assuming it will function the same as the K/M/A/F/FA 1.4s. I'd say one could even attach a threaded hood, then apply the inverse hood in the inner of that one to provide "Maximum Coverage"

Turns out that the 49-28mm step down ring just works as an aperture ring, reducing the effective f-stop of the lens, meaning you could just stop down this lens.
This would happen because this F 50mm 1.7, for example, is pretty sharp at f2, but soft at f1.7...it would reduce the f-stop slightly (to close to f2, probably) and make the lens "sharper", but you lose light.
It would still be a bit better, since you would have a rounded aperture at f2, instead of having it looking weird like it would if you stopped down.

reeftool · 03-26-2013, 10:12 PM

All lenses can benefit from a hood. The rubber ones do the job and don't cost much.

EarlVonTapia · 03-27-2013, 12:01 AM

Rubber hoods get warped pretty easy when they're sitting in your camera bag (they might even arrive all warped!) and then they look like cheap junk dangling on the tip of your package.

If you insist on using a hood with it, just take off the rubber from the cheap hood and you're left with a solid ring that is slightly thicker than your typical filter ring. Stack another ring on top of this (either a filter with the glass popped out, or a step-up ring) and now you have a solid, immovable, elegant "hood" for your lens.

One day, I'm going to fuse my F 50 1.7 with my heart. Like Iron Man.

troika · 03-27-2013, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by EarlVonTapia

...cheap junk dangling on the tip of your package.
...

Yikes! I definitely don't want that.

EarlVonTapia · 03-27-2013, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by troika

Yikes! I definitely don't want that.

What?

**Kerrowdown** · 03-27-2013, 02:41 AM

IMHO all lenses benefit from a hood, for protection if nothing else and usually contrast gets a boost too.

Mattco26 · 03-27-2013, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by EarlVonTapia

Rubber hoods get warped pretty easy when they're sitting in your camera bag (they might even arrive all warped!) and then they look like cheap junk dangling on the tip of your package.

If you insist on using a hood with it, just take off the rubber from the cheap hood and you're left with a solid ring that is slightly thicker than your typical filter ring. Stack another ring on top of this (either a filter with the glass popped out, or a step-up ring) and now you have a solid, immovable, elegant "hood" for your lens.

One day, I'm going to fuse my F 50 1.7 with my heart. Like Iron Man.

Or you could jusy buy a 49mm metal hood from ebay for 3 or 4 dollars. They work great. I don't understand why so many people use the crappy rubber ones.

macTak · 03-27-2013, 03:36 AM

I use the Takumar 135/3.5 hood (which has a 49mm thread, as does the F50/1.7). It's a nice, sturdy, deep hood, and has the benefit that at 62mm lens cap will secure on the front of it, so you never have to bother about taking the hood off.

bdery · 03-27-2013, 04:58 AM

I've tested f1,7s and f1,4 together, and while a hood is never a bad thin, the f1,7 does not "need" one. The improvement in contrast was very hard to spot with the hood on, contrary to an f1,4 where it does make a world of difference. It's a matter of preference, for me a hood is cumbersome and the gain was not visible, so I don't use one.

Originally posted by Mattco26

. I don't understand why so many people use the crappy rubber ones.

Because they collapse and are easier to carry.

03-26-2013, 08:13 PM	#1
troika Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Seattle, WA USA Posts: 1,753	F50 1.7 Hood? I have an in-bound F50 1.7, which I'm looking forward to. I've read that it doesn't need a hood because the element is recessed and I can see from pictures that it is compared to the 1.4 versions or either of the FA 50s. I've also seem some threads about which hoods people were using for these lenses without mention of the recessed element or the need for one. Does anyone who has owned this lens have a strong opinion about whether it does or does not benefit from a hood of some kind?

03-26-2013, 08:24 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	I still think it would benefit from a hood. You can get a nice rubber one on ebay (some even exist specifically for this lens, I believe). Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: $25 lenses: K1000, A50 1.7, M50 1:2, Super Takumar 55 2, etc	sergysergy	Sold Items	60	05-02-2013 11:38 AM
Lens hood for f50 1.7 and f35-70	karelson	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	05-24-2012 01:17 PM
f50- 1.7 question	COULDBE2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-07-2012 10:09 AM
For Sale - Sold: K20d, da18-135wr, F50/1.7	apisto	Sold Items	5	01-24-2012 09:29 AM
Damaged Filter Ring ON F50/1.7	violini	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-30-2011 07:38 PM

03-26-2013, 08:27 PM	#3
GabrielFFontes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Posts: 647	Well, yeah, it does benefit from a hood, but not a LOOOT. You could use a 135mm lens hood for this one.

03-26-2013, 08:44 PM	#4
troika Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Seattle, WA USA Posts: 1,753 Original Poster	Thanks, guys.

03-26-2013, 09:24 PM	#5
Eulogy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick Photos: Gallery Posts: 632	I'd heard you could use a 49->28mm step down ring as an inverse hood with marvelous results. This is assuming it will function the same as the K/M/A/F/FA 1.4s. I'd say one could even attach a threaded hood, then apply the inverse hood in the inner of that one to provide "Maximum Coverage"

03-26-2013, 09:27 PM	#6
troika Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Seattle, WA USA Posts: 1,753 Original Poster	I read that thread, but the photos were dead links, so I couldn't see what it looked like.

03-26-2013, 09:46 PM	#7
GabrielFFontes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Posts: 647	Originally posted by Eulogy I'd heard you could use a 49->28mm step down ring as an inverse hood with marvelous results. This is assuming it will function the same as the K/M/A/F/FA 1.4s. I'd say one could even attach a threaded hood, then apply the inverse hood in the inner of that one to provide "Maximum Coverage" Turns out that the 49-28mm step down ring just works as an aperture ring, reducing the effective f-stop of the lens, meaning you could just stop down this lens. This would happen because this F 50mm 1.7, for example, is pretty sharp at f2, but soft at f1.7...it would reduce the f-stop slightly (to close to f2, probably) and make the lens "sharper", but you lose light. It would still be a bit better, since you would have a rounded aperture at f2, instead of having it looking weird like it would if you stopped down.

03-26-2013, 10:12 PM	#8
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	All lenses can benefit from a hood. The rubber ones do the job and don't cost much.

03-27-2013, 12:01 AM	#9
EarlVonTapia Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Vancouver Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,207	Rubber hoods get warped pretty easy when they're sitting in your camera bag (they might even arrive all warped!) and then they look like cheap junk dangling on the tip of your package. If you insist on using a hood with it, just take off the rubber from the cheap hood and you're left with a solid ring that is slightly thicker than your typical filter ring. Stack another ring on top of this (either a filter with the glass popped out, or a step-up ring) and now you have a solid, immovable, elegant "hood" for your lens. One day, I'm going to fuse my F 50 1.7 with my heart. Like Iron Man.

03-27-2013, 12:35 AM	#10
troika Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Seattle, WA USA Posts: 1,753 Original Poster	Originally posted by EarlVonTapia ...cheap junk dangling on the tip of your package. ... Yikes! I definitely don't want that.

03-27-2013, 01:14 AM	#11
EarlVonTapia Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Vancouver Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,207	Originally posted by troika Yikes! I definitely don't want that. What?

03-27-2013, 02:41 AM	#12
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,815	IMHO all lenses benefit from a hood, for protection if nothing else and usually contrast gets a boost too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2013, 02:46 AM	#13
Mattco26 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 118	Originally posted by EarlVonTapia Rubber hoods get warped pretty easy when they're sitting in your camera bag (they might even arrive all warped!) and then they look like cheap junk dangling on the tip of your package. If you insist on using a hood with it, just take off the rubber from the cheap hood and you're left with a solid ring that is slightly thicker than your typical filter ring. Stack another ring on top of this (either a filter with the glass popped out, or a step-up ring) and now you have a solid, immovable, elegant "hood" for your lens. One day, I'm going to fuse my F 50 1.7 with my heart. Like Iron Man. Or you could jusy buy a 49mm metal hood from ebay for 3 or 4 dollars. They work great. I don't understand why so many people use the crappy rubber ones.

03-27-2013, 03:36 AM	#14
macTak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 759	I use the Takumar 135/3.5 hood (which has a 49mm thread, as does the F50/1.7). It's a nice, sturdy, deep hood, and has the benefit that at 62mm lens cap will secure on the front of it, so you never have to bother about taking the hood off.

03-27-2013, 04:58 AM	#15
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	I've tested f1,7s and f1,4 together, and while a hood is never a bad thin, the f1,7 does not "need" one. The improvement in contrast was very hard to spot with the hood on, contrary to an f1,4 where it does make a world of difference. It's a matter of preference, for me a hood is cumbersome and the gain was not visible, so I don't use one. Originally posted by Mattco26 . I don't understand why so many people use the crappy rubber ones. Because they collapse and are easier to carry.