Lens hood

I am Looking for a lens hood for my recently aquired lens (K 28 mm f3.5).
All my other manual focus lenses came with an expandable rubber lens hood, which I have been very pleased with so far.
I do however like the solid feel of metal hoods and have been looking at a Dorr 52 mm as this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dorr-52mm-Universal-Metal-Lens/dp/B002VK7O3S/ref=sr_1_12...
Will this be suitable for my 28 mm? Am I better off with a rubber thing? Or maybe something else?

Best regards
Ryan

It should be OK, but is probably wide enough for 35mm film.
You can get away with a longer hood on APS-C.

I prefer parallel metal hoods that you can leave on the lens
and fit a lens cap on the end of the hood.

I've actually got a Heliopan 52mm on my K 28mm f/3.5 but they
are very hard to find. It takes the 52mm lens cap on the end.
There's one on ebay but it's too long and would suit a tele.

The one I've put on my Pentax-F SMC 28-80mm zoom is this
one link I used a 58-49 stepping ring to fit it and it takes a 58mm lens cap.
The outer diam of about 60mm is the same as the lens.

They do the same hood in 52mm, but I don't know what size lens cap
would fit it.

---

Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Thanks Algi.

Totally agree with Algernon. I was happy about rubber lens hood until discovered the metal ones. You can fix it on the lens backwards while carrying in bag. Handy things!

---

Life is full of frames but only few of them will be captured.

Personally, I'm inclined the other way, i.e. I prefer rubber hoods for quite a few reasons:
- Don't need to be taken off and reversed for carrying - just fold the edge back, and that stops me losing the hoods completely as I would (and I have) if I dropped in when fitting/removing it. Also, the threaded mount is less likely to become detached and lost than the bayonet mount. (the only real way to secure a bayonet hood is with those elasticated rings with cord straps and self-adhesive pads to stick to the hood - and then the elasticated rings tend to get caught in the focusing/zooming rings of the lenses - as has happened to me - or the sticky pads fail anyway!)
- On a zoom lens, you can adjust the hood depth to suit the lens focal length
- Absorbs some of the impact gradually if you happen to drop the camera on its lens (has happened to me!)
- Much less likely to cause injuries if you happen to bump into someone, and that can easily happen in a crowd.
- Much less intimidating to Joe Public as it looks "less professional"
- Much cheaper and easier to replace if you do lose them.

This all reminds me that I should get rubber hoods for the big Sigmas - the one on the 100-300 sticks out an awful long way, makes it look like a bloody cannon, and tends to make it tip forwards. Yes, I know it does need a hood, but not one that ruddy long unless I am shooting almost directly into the sun! And, when there are showers (i.e. far too often) it is very difficult to get it under my parka - whereas with a rubber hood it would become a lot shorter quickly and tuck away far more easily.
(and I just bought one for that lens - unfortunately 82mm filter size is almost unobtainable, except from Hong Kong, so I hope it will arrive before Xmas )

The only lenses I would use bayonet hoods on are the extreme wide-angles like my 10-20 Sigma as the petal effect does help there.

---

K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)