Minolta CLE, 40mm Nokton and new LH-6 hood?

M

mr_phillip

Well-known
Local time
9:09 PM
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
577
Hey

I'm just wondering if anyone has had a chance to try the new Voigtländer LH-6 hood on a 40mm Nokton mounted on a CLE?

My LH-5 hood blocks the focusing patch on the CLE at closer focusing distances, but I'm curious if the slimmer new hood might be a better match on this camera – has anyone tried it?

Ian
 
This is an excellent question but I fear that the rim of the hood will be larger to cater for the slightly wider angle which may make the problem worse. Will be interesting to see if this bares out though.
 
if i understand it, you are wondering if the new hood interferes with the 'focus patch' in the finder?

i can say that on the cle with the new 35 & the new hood that there is no interference at all with the patch. it does show in the lower right corner quite a bit but being vented you only see a sliver of the hood, the sightlines are still very good.

as to the 35 and the 40 being the same lens there are lens diagrams available that show the optical groupings are similar but not the same. the 35 has has an extra element in it.
 
Thanks for that. I think I might pick up an LH-6 the next time I'm ordering something from Robert White and give it a go on the 40mm Notkon.
 
Hi Folks!

I have spent 50 pounds at Robert White and got the LH6-Hood for my Nokton 1,4/40 lens. I have tested both of them with my CLE. Nearly no difference. The LH6 is 1mm flatter than the LH5 but as wide as the LH5. There is a slight blocking of the rangefinder with both of them. I have got used to this.
I will use the new hood now, because it fits tighter to the bajonet od the nokton, my LH5 got loose after 3 years.

Regards
George
 
gyuribacsi said:
I will use the new hood now, because it fits tighter to the bajonet od the nokton, my LH5 got loose after 3 years.
Click to expand...

This looseness is easily remedied. Looking at the hood from the front rotate it until the "Voigtlander" insignia is on top (if you're holding it right the word will be upside down). You should see a little slat next to it. This slat has a metal nipple which holds the hood tight via friction. This slat bends out over time.

To fix, simply put the slat against the corner of a table or somesuch and push... how much I cannot not in Newtons, simply - "a bit of heave".

Pop it back on and Voila - lovely snug fitting hood, probably better than when it was new.
 
I had the same issue with my LH-5 – it became loose quite quickly after purchase. My solution was the same as kully's. I've now had to 'persuade' the offending slat a couple of times, but that solution doesn't seem like a good permanent fix – the nipple seems to be wearing down with use and the slat is likely to crack under persuasion at some point. It's basically just a very poor piece of design which the LH-6 seems at last to have addressed.
 
Robert White also do a screw in lens hood (VLH35P) which was made for the 35/2.5 Pancake but it fits the 40/1.4 and doesn't interfere with the rangefinder at all. It's also barely visible in the viewfinder. You can also get a cap that fits over the hood which is far easier to use than those plastic clip in caps.
 
monopix said:
Robert White also do a screw in lens hood (VLH35P) which was made for the 35/2.5 Pancake but it fits the 40/1.4 and doesn't interfere with the rangefinder at all. It's also barely visible in the viewfinder. You can also get a cap that fits over the hood which is far easier to use than those plastic clip in caps.
Click to expand...

I have heard about this too. It really facinates me, because I'm a great fan of rectangular hoods. They're superior in every way, is my humble opinion :).

Are the 43mm filters available for (easy) changing with the bayonet hood attached anyway?
 
Karefin said:
I have heard about this too. It really facinates me, because I'm a great fan of rectangular hoods. They're superior in every way, is my humble opinion :).

Are the 43mm filters available for (easy) changing with the bayonet hood attached anyway?
Click to expand...


The hood is actually a round one, not rectangular.

43mm filters are available yes.
 
Is the hood really necessary?
Is this lens prone to flare at all?
I ask because two friends of mine use this lens without a hood.
I also never used a hood on a Planar 50 lens. Flare was very rare (even when shooting directly toward the sun) and when existed, a hood wouldn't have solved it anyway.

Hoods cost money, they are big and ugly, and these high end lenses have such a good coating that 99% of the time they don't need it.
 
Well, I think I feel more safe with a hood on. Not just with backlight but also for protection. But, to be frank, I don't even have hoods for all my lenses. Maybe, if size was really critical, I would leave the hood off. But I'd buy the S.C.-version, so flare might even be a little issue.

But you're right, primes have so little elements, at least compared to high-end zooms, that flare is rarely a big issue. And probably modern single coatings are much more effective than single coatings a couple of decades ago.

Rectangular hoods are not only much more efficient than round ones, they are also less space-consuming. I think it's a big shame that manufacturers so rarely make them. Maybe it's more expensive to produce, and in these days where cost is everything...
 
well, if I were you I would first try to shoot with no hood and see if there a flare issue before looking for one.

As I said before, what I know (on the MC, not SC version) is that the lens is extremely flare resistant. I have three friends who use this lens a lot , with no hood. Aside from the blocking issue, a hood will make the small camera bulky and unbalanced. If you want protection, buy a good multicoated UV filter.

I also don't think that the Nokton is such a good choice compared to the 40/2 Rokkor or 'Cron u nless you really really intend to use it wide open. But then you might have focusing issues since the EBL of the camera is not so big. The performance of the 40/1.4 wide open (Bokeh etc.) is also controversial .

The 40/2 lenses are more compact, cost about the same and are superb performers by any standard.

But that's my personal opinion, nothing more
 
Last edited:
You have some points there, mainly matters of preference though. For me speed is a bigger issue than size. I already have the Summicron-C, but I have actually found it a bit too small even. I occasionally search for the controls, although I haven't owned it for that long... My hands aren't so small. Speed-freakiness I have a little, although f/2 is optional in size/speed-relationship.

Doesn't an UV-filter only increase the flare? Two more transitions from different substance to another... Filters are easier to get for the CV.

Some comparison pictures I saw, where the Nokton resolved more details. But I think the Rokkor/'Cron maybe has more spirit. A very small take, though.

And bulky? No no, SLRs are bulky, especially with zooms. Pocket cameras I have separately.


For me, it seems to come only to the one stop difference. But nevertheless, I love the summicron. Really. That's why it's a difficult desicion. It must be harder to love the CV...

But this is a little off topic already :).
 
OK, I think you're choice will be right, no matter what you decide...:)
my last two cents are the known fact, that you always loose money buying new gear. You don't neccessarily loose money buying old Leicas.. (that's refering to the Nokton)

good luck
Assaf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom