[TaoMaas]

For example on my 50mm I use the hood from the 105, on my 85mm I use the hood that was common for 135 and 200mm taks, etc....

This is what I do, too. Except, I'm using a hood from an 85mm on my 50mm lens because that's all I had.

[abacus07]

Just wanted to mention that I've put the tak 135/150/200 lens hood on my A50/1.7 (and DA40) w/o any vignetting (in viewfinder). This hood is the same length as the A50/1.7 when at min focus. Surprisingly there was only minimum vignetting on the M28/2.8. But the M28/2.8 works with a generic telephoto hood that is a little shorter and a little wider. Now I just need to get a couple bigger lens caps because it impossible to the original lens cap on.

Imo the original lens hoods are only worthwhile if you're a collector or using a full frame camera. Or using them on wider lenses.

I'll probably also check out the step down ring (DA40 imitator) hood. Very smart. Because there are a lot of times that I travel light.

[Nick Siebers]

I use this kind of hoods on all of my primes. They offer good protection for the lenses and hardly take up any space.

The inspiration comes from the hood of the DA 40mm Ltd.

Each "hood" is one or two step-down adapter rings.

My DA21 and DA70 gets a 49-37mm plus a 37mm-30.5mm, mainly to use the same lens caps as the DA40 (30.5mm).

The FA50 and F28 each get a 49-28mm.

The Sigma 50mm macro and the Tamron 90mm macro each gets a 55-30.5mm.

My Vivitar 135mm close-focusing gets a 62-49mm adapter ring, followed by a Pentax 49mm metal hood.

So I tried a 52-->37, 37-->30.5 on my sigma 24mm superwide, and I had marked vignetting. Similarly with a Vivitar 28mm and 49--> 37 --> 30.5. How do you avoid it with the DA 21?

[SOldBear]

So I tried a 52-->37, 37-->30.5 on my sigma 24mm superwide, and I had marked vignetting. Similarly with a Vivitar 28mm and 49--> 37 --> 30.5. How do you avoid it with the DA 21?

How? I lied.

You're right, Nick. But I currently don't have the DA21 to test. I gave it to my son to bring to college. He did mention about vignetting to me but not having the lens to use, I forgot about it. He said that the 37- 30.5 caused vignetting so he removed it (still kept the 49-37 on) when he needed the corners. I'll ask him and if there are more details, I'll post back.

Thanks. Sorry for the mis-info.

[Nick Siebers]

How? I lied.

You're right, Nick. But I currently don't have the DA21 to test. I gave it to my son to bring to college. He did mention about vignetting to me but not having the lens to use, I forgot about it. He said that the 37- 30.5 caused vignetting so he removed it (still kept the 49-37 on) when he needed the corners. I'll ask him and if there are more details, I'll post back.

Thanks. Sorry for the mis-info.

Ha ha ha! No, that's fine. I've been using old hoods for 50mm lenses on them. But I love the inverted hood on the 40's and 50's so much it would be great to get something similar that would work on wider lenses. And what is up with zoom lenses? I can't imaging how 80 mm of an 80-200 zoom would vignette when a prime 40 doesn't, but I found that it did.

[SOldBear]

And what is up with zoom lenses? I can't imaging how 80 mm of an 80-200 zoom would vignette when a prime 40 doesn't, but I found that it did.

None of the zoom lenses I have works with this kind of "hood."

[Turtle]

I have received the 49-28 step down ring and fitted it to the F 28/2.8, and it is perfect. I am inspired by this solution so much SOldbear, thanks.

[Turtle]

Also I have tested the 49-28 step down ring for the M 28/2 and it is the perfect DIA with no vignetting.

[wolfiegirl]

I have a question - what about 'petal hoods'? How do they differ to the square/round/rubber hoods that everyone uses? I'm thinking about adding some hoods to my collection, and see all different sorts of generic hoods available on ebay, and have no idea why diferent shapes like the petal hoods are available and what they do for protecting against flare etc?

[abacus07]

petal hoods and rectangular hoods are designed for the rectangular sensor/film that we take pictures with. They offer more protection in the vertical and less in the horizontal. In theory it allows them to be as deep as possible but in reality they are typically not optimized for a specific lens (unless OEM) since one size usually fits all. But they look cool.

What you need is the deepest hood that you can get. And with today's APSC you can use telephoto hoods for most normal lenses. As I said before the takumar 135/150/200 hoods work with my DA40 and my A50/1.7. It almost works with my M28/2.8. At some point I'll test that hood on all of my lenses (tak 35/3.5 and the rest of my 50's). Conveniently 49mm center pinch caps fall right into place and easy to use with these hoods.

[wolfiegirl]

thanks for the info abacus!

[frank]

I like to use those screw on type metal hoods w/ matching front caps. They not only protect the front glass, but also make the lenses look better.

[wolfiegirl]

are they just generic ebay ones frank? how much do they set you back? i was looking at a metal hood for my taks and the original ones go for like $17+ or more!! I could get a lens for that...

[frank]

are they just generic ebay ones frank? how much do they set you back? i was looking at a metal hood for my taks and the original ones go for like $17+ or more!! I could get a lens for that...

Yeah, it's the same as those generic ebay ones, which I like better than the original Pentax clip-on types. The original Pentax clip-on hoods are mostly plastic ones (some are metal ones, but rare). Those cheapy screw-on type feels more solid, and best of all, you can put a cap on top of the hood, much convenient to use.

The hood alone only costs a few dollars, plus a cap, they won't cost more than $10. Some sellers even sell them bundled together.

[wolfiegirl]

hrmm.. interesting. thanks frank! will look into it. have to decide which of my lenses need hoods, and figure out all their diameters. another costly exercise at $10 a pop!