Lens hood


Link Posted 28/08/2012 - 19:42
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:
Will this be suitable for my 28 mm? Am I better off with a rubber thing? Or maybe something else?

Best regards


Link Posted 28/08/2012 - 21:27
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

Last Edited by Algernon on 28/08/2012 - 21:31


Link Posted 29/08/2012 - 20:34
Thanks Algi.


Link Posted 30/08/2012 - 09:22
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.


Link Posted 30/08/2012 - 21:08
pentflash wrote:
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!

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!)
Last Edited by jeallen01 on 30/08/2012 - 21:28
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.