Oblongular metal lens hoods

[seany65]

Hello all, Just thought I'd use the alternative word for Rectangular which no-one ever seems to use.

Anyway, I'd like to ask if anyone knows of an 'oblongular' metal lens hood suitable for a 35-70mm f3.5 lens with a thread of 58mm?

I don't want to be paying £20 or whatever though.

There are metal hoods designed for 35mm lenses, but I'd like a deeper hood than they seem to be.

Or are there any metal 'petal' hoods?

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[FrozenInTime]

The 58mm vented metal hoods that can be bought cheaply on Amazon work well at the wide end - I use one on my Nikonos.

If you want better over the whole zoom range, one trick would be to copy the English photographer James Ravilious:
Take a standard vented hood and square it off with baffles

http://f16.click/personal-photography/james-ravilous-leica-m3.html

Somewhere there is a video in which his widow talks about him modifying hoods.

 

[peterm1]

I have, myself, checked few times on ebay but sadly I have been unable to find any suitable modern rectobular (haha - beat you) lens hoods in metal for any lens.

But one possible option that occurs to me is the lens hood for the Asahi Pentax Takumar 24mm M42 lens which I seem to recall was 58mm diameter. Of course being for a 24mm lens its hood will not afford a great deal of protection from the sun on your lens. But it may suit your requirements subject to a clamp fit lens hood working on your particular lens. (One way around this if the outside diameter of your lens is a problem is to mount a 58mm UV filter on your lens then clamp the hood to this although its not the most stable arrangement in the world for hood mounting).

A photo of the 24mm and its hood may be seen here (scroll down). Be warned it's pretty much of a monster in size and I do not expect it to be cheap.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/S-M-C-Super-Takumar-24mm-F3.5.html

 

[zuikologist]

There are plenty of petal hoods on eBay, you will need to check these work for your fov. Alternatively, the square hoods for the Colin filter system or similar might work.

 

[seany65]

@FrozenInTime, Hmmm. An interesting suggestion. I'll consider it.

@peterm1, That obtangular (Ha, beat you that time!) hood looks like a possibility.

I suppose with both of those suggestions I could try buying an empty filter ring or two to extend the hood a little, to see if I can get more shading without vignetting.

@zuikologist, I have been thinking about petal hoods, but I'd like one with slightly longer side panel things, I'd also like a metal one. I'm not sure there are metal ones available. The cokin idea is a decent one as well, so I'll look into it.

 

[seany65]

I don't supose anyone knows if there are any modern video cameras that can film in a 3:2 format?

There are some oblongular lens hoods video cameras use, that may be suitable, so I thought I'd ask.

 

[seany65]

@FrozenInTime, is the vented hood you have on your Nikonos 'slanted' or straight, and what is the lens's focal length?

I've not been able to find any straight hoods. I did compare my 46mm vented slanted hood against my straight non-vented 58mm hood, and while the vented one is a little shallower, the front edge does angle inwards so maybe that may cancel out any advantage it gains by being shorter?


Would getting a 67mm straight non-vented hood and a 58mm-67mm step-up ring be a waste of time as the wider hood wouldn't be as good at shading the front element as a closer-fitting hood?

I thought of a 67mm instead of a 62mm hood as my present 58mm hood sticks into the view by at least 2mm and a step-up ring would extend any hood into the view, and the finder doesn't show all of the view in the first place.

Does anyone know of any flower hoods that are metal and suitable for a 35-70mm zoom?

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[FrozenInTime]

The hood on the 80mm lens is https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A2JT6AY

On the 35mm lens is https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KEY6060

 

[seany65]

Thanks for the link, FrozenInTime. I am alittle surprised that the hood on the 35mm being angled doesn't intrude into the pic though.

Hmmm, does the size of the front element of a lens affect the performance of a lens hood?

 

[Steve M.]

The link below will give you some good info on video aspect ratios. If you want high quality and don't want to shoot film (nothing looks as good as film, but the expense!), then buy a Red camera. They can do 3.2. Everything is an add on though. I mean everything. The second link gives your basic price structure for the box only. Looking at these prices ( no memory, no hand holds, no lenses, no batteries, etc) makes Super 8 look pretty doable! That's on the third link. Shooting 35mm film runs about $450-$850 for every 11 minutes, not including the processing. Super 16 would be my choice (if not for my Super 8 budget).

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/video-aspect-ratios

http://www.red.com/store/cameras

http://petapixel.com/2016/01/06/kod...per-8-as-a-film-camera-with-digital-features/

 

[seany65]

@ Steve M. Thanks for the info and the links. I appreciate the effort.

I think I've given you the wrong impression, I was asking about video cameras that work with 35mm film only because I wanted to find out if they have lens hoods that are oblong and that can fit onto a 58mm-threaded 35mm 'wide angle' lens, as I believe oblong hoods can be deeper than round ones.

I think I should have said "...video cameras that work on the aspect ratio of 3:2 like 35mm stillls cameras do..."

Sorry.😱

 

[Richard G]

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/why-is-oblongular-not-a-word.284789/

 

[seany65]

So, Richard G, You're this forum's 'sensible one' eh?

Anyway, I'm not listening lalalalalalalalala, oblungular is a word so there!
😛

 

[seany65]

I've gone with a step-up ring of 58mm-77mm and a standard metal hood of 77mm, as I think this hood is deeper than any 58mm 'wide angle' hood.

I did try a 58mm-67mm combo, but that wasn't quite wide enough as I could just see a tidgy bit of vignetting at each corner. I think a 58mm-72mm could've worked, but I decided to err on the side of caution.