FA 50 rubber lens hood...yay/nay??

ll_coffee_lP · 08-16-2008, 08:04 AM

Title says it all folks. I'm looking to p/u a lens hood for my fa50 1.4. I wondered if the collapsible rubber kind were any good (I've seen these on Ebay).

Pros/cons??

Thanks in advance.

c[_]

reeftool · 08-16-2008, 08:36 AM

I had one on a 50 mm on my film camera for many years. It finally tore through and fell apart. It was only 20 years old too.
I have had no issues with them at all but I have heard some complain they vigenette on some lenses.

Wheatfield · 08-16-2008, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP

Title says it all folks. I'm looking to p/u a lens hood for my fa50 1.4. I wondered if the collapsible rubber kind were any good (I've seen these on Ebay).

Pros/cons??

Thanks in advance.

c[_]

Pros: Cheap, provide pretty good protection to the front of the lens, especially when folded back.
Cons: Not as effective as a rectangular hood that is fitted to the lens angle of view.

8540tomg · 08-16-2008, 08:59 AM

There is some debate as to whether lens hoods are of any value or not. There are several reasons to use a hood. Some suggest they reduce flare, increase colour saturation and they can protect the front of the lens from impacts and fingerprints. Many use hoods instead of protective filters. This helps image quality as you are not putting another piece of glass in front of your expensive lens which might degrade the image. They also look pretty cool. On the downside, like some long lenses, some hoods "may" cause shadow issues with flash, Vignetting can be a problem if the hood is not one specifically designed for use on your particular lens. On a more practical note they also take up premium space in your camera bag.

I’m a fan of the lens hood. I use them on all my lenses. I tried a rubber hood for a while on my M 50mm. On the plus side it was cheap and it kept out some stray light. These were about the only redeeming features of the cheap rubber hood I can recall. The rubber deteriorated over time and tore in the collapsable fold area. It then had to be replaced. If you are convinced of the value of lens hoods you might as well bite the bullet and buy a hard plastic or metal one in the first place. I prefer the rectangular hoods over the circular ones. They will/should last longer than the rubber ones providiing better protection in addition to the other advantages noted above.

Tom G

Last edited by 8540tomg; 08-16-2008 at 04:31 PM. Reason: typo

ll_coffee_lP · 08-16-2008, 09:47 AM

Good info.

I'm quite familiar with the benefits of the lens hood and the possible downsides too. Sounds like a collapsible rubber one would suffice for my needs (just looking to keep out stray light on this particular lens). If they last for 20 years (or even 5) I'll be more than satisfied.

Thanks for the assistance.

c[_]

P.S. I'll continue to watch this thread to see if anyone else has anything to add.

**Ahab** · 08-16-2008, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

I had one on a 50 mm on my film camera for many years. It finally tore through and fell apart. It was only 20 years old too.
I have had no issues with them at all but I have heard some complain they vigenette on some lenses.

Same here.

Mike Cash · 08-16-2008, 03:18 PM

Take up space? I have one 49mm rubber hood that I bought off of KEH, with "Vivitar" stamped on the side, so God only knows how old it is.....works with all of my Takumars except the 200/4.

It is only when I go more "modern" that I run into the problem of needing a variety of different hoods for different lenses.

Another benefit of the rubber hoods is that in their collapsed position they do a good job of helping to hold your camera level when you set it down, unless you have the grip installed.

Last edited by Mike Cash; 08-16-2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason: typo

8540tomg · 08-16-2008, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

Take up space? I have one 49mm rubber hood that I bought off of KEH, with "Vivitar" stamped on the side, so God only knows how only it is.....works with all of my Takumars except the 200/4.

Actually Mike I was referring to the hard plastic and metal ones taking up space. They don't take up a lot of room but certainly more than the rubber ones. I find I can't leave the hard hoods on my 50, 35 or 24mm lenses in my bag. I keep them in a separate compartment. I guess this is another plus for the rubber hoods.

Tom G

little laker · 08-16-2008, 03:32 PM

I use one of those rubber lens hoods on around 1/2 my more common lenses, and wouldn't consider using anything else

They're cheap at around $5.00, and last for years.

Nesster · 08-16-2008, 05:13 PM

I say yea, I've ended up with a few over the years, and I'm like Mike...

hinckc · 08-16-2008, 05:47 PM

Hi!

I got a rubber hood for my FA50 about 2 months ago...

I'd say it bumps the contrast a bit, especially in cases where it might flare or wash-out, otherwise...

Only downside... My lens cap (not original Pentax -- I lost mine!) doesn't fit on the lens with the hood on. So, it's cap off, screw on the hood, then shoot. Not a major gripe, but perhaps the only downside to using it.
I still take the extra step most of the time when I use it.

ps. I don't use typically use filters, even UV.

-Chris

Venturi · 08-16-2008, 05:58 PM

One other minor con to the rubber hood is the focus ring on the FA50 is so small that the hood does get in the way of your fingers in Manual focus.

8540tomg · 08-16-2008, 06:35 PM

Looks like the majority here favour the rubber hood. It makes sense as it will do the job much more economically. I still prefer the hard plastic hoods as I think they offer a little more protection for the lens. It seems to be an apples/oranges debate. Go with the one that makes you happy.

Tom G

walter · 08-16-2008, 06:56 PM

I own two, one from ebay and one from 2filter (made by Hoya). The Hoya lens hood is better quality, but doesn't work very well with lens caps. I use them occasionally, but mostly not, since it makes the lens larger and harder to fit in my bag. I think they're worth the 5 to 10 dollars though.

Mike Cash · 08-16-2008, 11:09 PM

I have the metal hood for my Super Takumar 200/4, bought in a separate auction. Mainly bought it just for the retro appeal. In the bag I just drop it over the base mount of the lens and it rides there just fine, taking up no extra space. I got one of those kewl rectangular hoods for my 28/3.5, again mainly for the retro appeal. With digital crop factor a regular old rubber hood works fine. On my film bodies it's nice to have the "proper" hood. I just won a metal hood for my beloved 105/2.8. Five bucks and two bucks shipping, it's sort of hard to resist. Whether I'll actually use it or not remains to be seen. That rubber hood is so handy.

08-16-2008, 08:04 AM	#1
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	FA 50 rubber lens hood...yay/nay?? Title says it all folks. I'm looking to p/u a lens hood for my fa50 1.4. I wondered if the collapsible rubber kind were any good (I've seen these on Ebay). Pros/cons?? Thanks in advance. c[_]

08-16-2008, 08:59 AM	#4
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Lens Hoods There is some debate as to whether lens hoods are of any value or not. There are several reasons to use a hood. Some suggest they reduce flare, increase colour saturation and they can protect the front of the lens from impacts and fingerprints. Many use hoods instead of protective filters. This helps image quality as you are not putting another piece of glass in front of your expensive lens which might degrade the image. They also look pretty cool. On the downside, like some long lenses, some hoods "may" cause shadow issues with flash, Vignetting can be a problem if the hood is not one specifically designed for use on your particular lens. On a more practical note they also take up premium space in your camera bag. I’m a fan of the lens hood. I use them on all my lenses. I tried a rubber hood for a while on my M 50mm. On the plus side it was cheap and it kept out some stray light. These were about the only redeeming features of the cheap rubber hood I can recall. The rubber deteriorated over time and tore in the collapsable fold area. It then had to be replaced. If you are convinced of the value of lens hoods you might as well bite the bullet and buy a hard plastic or metal one in the first place. I prefer the rectangular hoods over the circular ones. They will/should last longer than the rubber ones providiing better protection in addition to the other advantages noted above. Tom G Last edited by 8540tomg; 08-16-2008 at 04:31 PM. Reason: typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rubber lens hood problem	shellie	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	2	08-24-2010 06:09 AM
To get a Kiev 88... Yay or Nay?	VF-19	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	36	02-21-2010 06:44 PM
Tamron 18-250mm Yay or Nay?	jct us101	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	08-17-2009 08:28 AM
Experience with refurbs - Yay or nay?	der	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	06-23-2009 09:35 AM
Lens hood –rubber or metal?	tmacdon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	05-27-2008 08:47 PM

08-16-2008, 08:36 AM	#2
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,552	I had one on a 50 mm on my film camera for many years. It finally tore through and fell apart. It was only 20 years old too. I have had no issues with them at all but I have heard some complain they vigenette on some lenses.

08-16-2008, 08:42 AM	#3
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP Title says it all folks. I'm looking to p/u a lens hood for my fa50 1.4. I wondered if the collapsible rubber kind were any good (I've seen these on Ebay). Pros/cons?? Thanks in advance. c[_] Pros: Cheap, provide pretty good protection to the front of the lens, especially when folded back. Cons: Not as effective as a rectangular hood that is fitted to the lens angle of view.

08-16-2008, 09:47 AM	#5
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972 Original Poster	Good info. I'm quite familiar with the benefits of the lens hood and the possible downsides too. Sounds like a collapsible rubber one would suffice for my needs (just looking to keep out stray light on this particular lens). If they last for 20 years (or even 5) I'll be more than satisfied. Thanks for the assistance. c[_] P.S. I'll continue to watch this thread to see if anyone else has anything to add.

08-16-2008, 10:22 AM	#6
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	Originally posted by reeftool I had one on a 50 mm on my film camera for many years. It finally tore through and fell apart. It was only 20 years old too. I have had no issues with them at all but I have heard some complain they vigenette on some lenses. Same here.

08-16-2008, 03:18 PM	#7
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Take up space? I have one 49mm rubber hood that I bought off of KEH, with "Vivitar" stamped on the side, so God only knows how old it is.....works with all of my Takumars except the 200/4. It is only when I go more "modern" that I run into the problem of needing a variety of different hoods for different lenses. Another benefit of the rubber hoods is that in their collapsed position they do a good job of helping to hold your camera level when you set it down, unless you have the grip installed. Last edited by Mike Cash; 08-16-2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason: typo

08-16-2008, 03:27 PM	#8
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Originally posted by Mike Cash Take up space? I have one 49mm rubber hood that I bought off of KEH, with "Vivitar" stamped on the side, so God only knows how only it is.....works with all of my Takumars except the 200/4. Actually Mike I was referring to the hard plastic and metal ones taking up space. They don't take up a lot of room but certainly more than the rubber ones. I find I can't leave the hard hoods on my 50, 35 or 24mm lenses in my bag. I keep them in a separate compartment. I guess this is another plus for the rubber hoods. Tom G

08-16-2008, 03:32 PM	#9
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	I use one of those rubber lens hoods on around 1/2 my more common lenses, and wouldn't consider using anything else They're cheap at around $5.00, and last for years.

08-16-2008, 05:13 PM	#10
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	I say yea, I've ended up with a few over the years, and I'm like Mike...

08-16-2008, 05:47 PM	#11
hinckc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: New Jersey, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 298	Hi! I got a rubber hood for my FA50 about 2 months ago... I'd say it bumps the contrast a bit, especially in cases where it might flare or wash-out, otherwise... Only downside... My lens cap (not original Pentax -- I lost mine!) doesn't fit on the lens with the hood on. So, it's cap off, screw on the hood, then shoot. Not a major gripe, but perhaps the only downside to using it. I still take the extra step most of the time when I use it. ps. I don't use typically use filters, even UV. -Chris

08-16-2008, 05:58 PM	#12
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	One other minor con to the rubber hood is the focus ring on the FA50 is so small that the hood does get in the way of your fingers in Manual focus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2008, 06:35 PM	#13
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Looks like the majority here favour the rubber hood. It makes sense as it will do the job much more economically. I still prefer the hard plastic hoods as I think they offer a little more protection for the lens. It seems to be an apples/oranges debate. Go with the one that makes you happy. Tom G

08-16-2008, 06:56 PM	#14
walter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 239	I own two, one from ebay and one from 2filter (made by Hoya). The Hoya lens hood is better quality, but doesn't work very well with lens caps. I use them occasionally, but mostly not, since it makes the lens larger and harder to fit in my bag. I think they're worth the 5 to 10 dollars though.

08-16-2008, 11:09 PM	#15
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I have the metal hood for my Super Takumar 200/4, bought in a separate auction. Mainly bought it just for the retro appeal. In the bag I just drop it over the base mount of the lens and it rides there just fine, taking up no extra space. I got one of those kewl rectangular hoods for my 28/3.5, again mainly for the retro appeal. With digital crop factor a regular old rubber hood works fine. On my film bodies it's nice to have the "proper" hood. I just won a metal hood for my beloved 105/2.8. Five bucks and two bucks shipping, it's sort of hard to resist. Whether I'll actually use it or not remains to be seen. That rubber hood is so handy.