Pentax-M 40mm 2.8 hood?

In normal circumstances (that is to say for most short to normal Pentax lenses with a 49mm filter size) I would choose the clamp-fit one designed for the 28mm and 35mm SMC Takumar in screw mount. Its a bit wide for a 40mm perhaps but it is built strongly and looks good being a rectangular metal hood. It can be a bit pricy to find online though. As long as the clamp is tightened appropriately it is very secure. But I believe the 40mm f2.8 is a pancake lens and may lack the barrel length required to give it proper "purchase".

s-l225.jpg


If that is the case I would use a cheap non proprietary metal screw in hood from eBay. They work well and come in a variety of designs for different focal lengths.
 
In all the years of using a 40mm 2.8 M l have never used a hood, not saying you do not need one, just saying l cannot ever remember one being offered by Pentax for salel Good luck in your quest
 
kermaier said:
Why not use the nifty dome-shaped hood for the modern Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 lens, which also has a 49mm filter thread?
Click to expand...

That would only work if you're using the 40mm on APS-C digital. On a 35mm/fullframe camera, that hood will cause vignetting (I'm pretty sure).
 
How about buying a couple of those effect filters that often show up on flea markets, knocking out the glass and stacking as many of the rings as you can without vignetting?
And how do you like the lens? thinking about one of those myself, having finally acquired a nice MX...
 
retinax said:
How about buying a couple of those effect filters that often show up on flea markets, knocking out the glass and stacking as many of the rings as you can without vignetting?
Click to expand...

That is what I do with my zuiko 40mm. Two skylight filters together but I broke the glass. Works well.
 
retinax said:
How about buying a couple of those effect filters that often show up on flea markets, knocking out the glass and stacking as many of the rings as you can without vignetting?
Click to expand...

That's something to consider too.

I only shot a test roll with mine since I had to send my new-to-me faulty MX to Eric Hendrickson for repair (should be back mid October). The frames that turned out are full of character and sharp, even wide-open. It looks like it's going to be a great lens.
 
retinax said:
How about buying a couple of those effect filters that often show up on flea markets, knocking out the glass and stacking as many of the rings as you can without vignetting?
And how do you like the lens? thinking about one of those myself, having finally acquired a nice MX...
Click to expand...

I do this trick with various lenses, especially wide-angles. It works well.

The 40mm is a 5 elements in 4 groups design, like a Tessar with one extra elements at rear.

It has relatively low rating on the wonderful and informative pentaxforum. Because other pentax lenses are too good. I guess.

However, when compared with those 40/38mm f/2.8 Tessar-like lenses they put on those Japanese compact rangefinders, the Pentax 40mm just blow all of them out of water. It is sharper and you wouldn't notice the nasty vignetting, which is a "feature" from those 40/38mm Tessar wide angles.

I like the lens, it is sharp enough and the extra compactness it provides make my MX compete with my rangefinders.

tumblr_oizw7asj9K1tdm6l6o1_540.jpg

f/2.8 or so. Kodak Gold 200.
 
Swift1 said:
That would only work if you're using the 40mm on APS-C digital. On a 35mm/fullframe camera, that hood will cause vignetting (I'm pretty sure).
Click to expand...

Hmm, you could be right. The hood caused vignetting on a CV 50/1.5 M-mount lens, though I thought it might be due to the size of the front element.

Maybe the hood for the Pentax-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited lens might work? It's slightly longer in focal length, but that's a full-frame lens, at least....
 
nukecoke said:
I do this trick with various lenses, especially wide-angles. It works well.

The 40mm is a 5 elements in 4 groups design, like a Tessar with one extra elements at rear.

It has relatively low rating on the wonderful and informative pentaxforum. Because other pentax lenses are too good. I guess.

However, when compared with those 40/38mm f/2.8 Tessar-like lenses they put on those Japanese compact rangefinders, the Pentax 40mm just blow all of them out of water. It is sharper and you wouldn't notice the nasty vignetting, which is a "feature" from those 40/38mm Tessar wide angles.

I like the lens, it is sharp enough and the extra compactness it provides make my MX compete with my rangefinders.

tumblr_oizw7asj9K1tdm6l6o1_540.jpg

f/2.8 or so. Kodak Gold 200.
Click to expand...


nice photo by the way, l have used the Pentax 40 2.8 for many years and for me its a great pocket combo when teamed up with an MX or LX:)
 
Colin G. said:
Would a screw-on 50mm hood vignette if used in conjunction with a filter? Would it be better to use one for 35mm focal length?

The lens had a dedicated hood according to this site: http://kmp.pentaxians.eu/lenses/normal/m40f2-8/
Click to expand...

I don't think it would vignette.

When I shoot with my Pentax K-01 and SMC Pentax-F 28/2.8 (about 42mm equivalent), I use the Pentax clip-on hood designed for the M 85/2 and 100/2.8
That hood is much deeper than the Takumar 55/1.8 hood, and I get no vignetting.
 
lxmike said:
nice photo by the way, l have used the Pentax 40 2.8 for many years and for me its a great pocket combo when teamed up with an MX or LX:)
Click to expand...

Thanks! I really wish the MX can be a quieter camera, to fit its small form factor. Then I probably will use it more than any rangefinders.

Actually the shutter and the mirror make only a small noise on my MX, it's always the aperture-pushing-lever's returning makes the biggest and penetrating "Ka-ting".
 
Thanks for the suggestions. I went to one of my locals today since they have large bins filled with all sorts of accessories for legacy gear; tons of Pentax stuff. I found a mint Takumar 55/1.8 hood in its original leather case and I also picked up a mint SG screen for the MX.
 
nukecoke said:
Thanks! I really wish the MX can be a quieter camera, to fit its small form factor. Then I probably will use it more than any rangefinders.

Actually the shutter and the mirror make only a small noise on my MX, it's always the aperture-pushing-lever's returning makes the biggest and penetrating "Ka-ting".
Click to expand...


I was using my MX today instead of an RF but found it too noisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom