Nikon Lens Hoods

I have recently purchased 3 AF-D Nikkors for my D70s, a 35/2, 50/1.4 &
85/1.4. The 85mm came with an excellent metal screw in hood, but the other
lenses came without hoods. I got myself the HN-3 screw in metal hood for
the 35mm and I was thinking of getting the HR-2 screw in rubber hood for the
50mm (it's what Nikon recommend) but the HN-3 seems to work with this lens.

I'm wondering whether I should simply order a second HN-3 for the 50 as I'm
pretty sure a metal hood will give better protection to the lens than a
rubber hood, even though I might risk more flare as it's a shallower hood.
I have been using the 50 with no hood for the last 2 months and not been too
affected by flare, so perhaps the HN-3 is a good compromise.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...

For your 50/1.4 I might suggest you get a Nikon HS-9 since it has a
clip-in
feature that is more practical and is also reversible for easy storage of
the lens. Here's one on eBay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ120075518426

I have the 85/1.4 as well and I find the supplied hood utterly miserable
to
use since it is a screw in type that is not reversible....

Quite a lot of people seem to like a "reversible" hoods, but I prefer to
"fit & forget". I have never actually removed the hood from my 85 as it
fits in my camera bag fine with the hood in place (a lowepro mini trecker).
If I had a very small bag then it might be too long with the hood in place,
but I hate having to fit hoods and prefer to leave them permanently fitted.
I have a couple of DX zooms (17-55 & 12-24) with nasty plastic hoods and
they don't look like they would provide much protection if the lens were to
take a knock. Also I worry that if I were to grab a lens by the hood then
the lens could separate leaving me just holding the hood!

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...

My feelings on reversible hoods are *IF* they are designed properly they
are
very secure and shouldn't come off under normal use. The HS-9 is still a
threaded hood that has a spring loaded release button. It's very secure
and
takes a lot of force to accidentally remove it. I find it interesting
that
you leave the hood on the 85 when on the go. I have both a backpack and
shoulder bag and still don't feel like I have the room to carry any of my
lenses with a hood not reversed. Do you have dust cover to go over the
hood? I can see dust being a problem since you can't put the lens cap on
with the hood.

When I first got the 85/1.4 I was a bit worried about fitting the lens cap,
but then I realised that the inside of the hood was threaded to give the cap
something to grip on. The trick I have found is to make sure that the two
bits you pinch together on the cap are pressed together as far as they will
go as only then will the cap stay firmly in place. The HN-3 (for the 35/2)
seems better designed in this respect as the cap does not need to pinched
together so much to fit it.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

Adrian Boliston wrote:

I have recently purchased 3 AF-D Nikkors for my D70s, a 35/2, 50/1.4 &
85/1.4. The 85mm came with an excellent metal screw in hood, but the other
lenses came without hoods. I got myself the HN-3 screw in metal hood for
the 35mm and I was thinking of getting the HR-2 screw in rubber hood for the
50mm (it's what Nikon recommend) but the HN-3 seems to work with this lens.

I'm wondering whether I should simply order a second HN-3 for the 50 as I'm
pretty sure a metal hood will give better protection to the lens than a
rubber hood, even though I might risk more flare as it's a shallower hood.
I have been using the 50 with no hood for the last 2 months and not been too
affected by flare, so perhaps the HN-3 is a good compromise.

With DX format, you can use a longer hood than you could use on 35mm.
Nikon's "recommended" hoods assume you're shooting 35mm (presumably
unless it's a DX lens) and thus are not really suitable for digital SLRs.
I use a hood made for a 50mm lens on my 35/2.

On my 50mm lenses I use longer hoods. B&W makes a generic "telephoto lens
hood", in both metal and rubber; I have one of each and use them on 50mm.
But for the 50/1.2, which requires a long hood to reduce veiling flare, I
use a metal Nikon HN-8 hood, originally made for a 105mm lens; even that
isn't too long for a 50mm on DX (which suggests that it was never really
long enough for 105mm in the first place). The HN-8 was the longest metal
hood I could find in 52mm screw mount, but it's not made any more; I found
it used at KEH.

I wish there were more and better hoods available. The more generic models
are overly generic; "telephoto" encompasses quite a long range. I'd like
hoods that are designed for a particular focal length, to be just the right
length.

--
Jeremy |

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message ...
I have recently purchased 3 AF-D Nikkors for my D70s, a 35/2, 50/1.4 & 85/1.4. The 85mm came with an excellent metal screw in
hood, but the other lenses came without hoods. I got myself the HN-3 screw in metal hood for the 35mm and I was thinking of
getting the HR-2 screw in rubber hood for the 50mm (it's what Nikon recommend) but the HN-3 seems to work with this lens.

I'm wondering whether I should simply order a second HN-3 for the 50 as I'm pretty sure a metal hood will give better protection
to the lens than a rubber hood, even though I might risk more flare as it's a shallower hood. I have been using the 50 with no
hood for the last 2 months and not been too affected by flare, so perhaps the HN-3 is a good compromise.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

Even for full frame (film), I use the deep HS-9 (with the very thin
Niko UV) on the 35mm f2 AF and the deep and large HS-7 (with
a standard thickness Hoya UV) on the 50mm f1.4 AF without
problems. With the smaller digital sensor area, even more angle
restricting shades can be used. I use yogurt or other slip-on covers
to keep dust out - with the lens and shade face down in the bag.
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

According to Jeremy Nixon :
Adrian Boliston wrote:

[ ... ]

I'm wondering whether I should simply order a second HN-3 for the 50 as I'm
pretty sure a metal hood will give better protection to the lens than a
rubber hood, even though I might risk more flare as it's a shallower hood.
I have been using the 50 with no hood for the last 2 months and not been too
affected by flare, so perhaps the HN-3 is a good compromise.

With DX format, you can use a longer hood than you could use on 35mm.
Nikon's "recommended" hoods assume you're shooting 35mm (presumably
unless it's a DX lens) and thus are not really suitable for digital SLRs.
I use a hood made for a 50mm lens on my 35/2.

With the HN (threaded) hoods, yes. However, at least based on
the three lenses which I have with the HB (bayonet) hoods, each bayonet
seems to be designed to not be interchangeable with the others.
Presumably, this is to reduce the chances of putting the wrong hood on
and getting vignetting with film -- but with a DX sensor, it prevents
you from gaining the benefit of a longer hood while still being able to
use filters and/or lens caps as usual.

I would like a series of bayonet hoods (perhaps with a different
color exterior to warn you) for the whole series of lenses with bayonet
hood mounts used on cameras with the DX sensors.

As for the other discussion of protection offered by the hoods,
I've at least bounced into things (doorframes and such) with the hood,
and while it gave, it sprang back to shape without breaking, and
protected the lenses on which they were mounted. This even applies to
the strangely-shaped one for the 18-70mm "kit" lens -- which I would
have thought would have been particularly fragile as a function of its
shape. So -- they put a good choice of plastic into those hoods.

While I'll probably mount the hoods backwards in the camera bag
for the longer lenses, I'll certainly swap them around to forwards when
they are on the camera. And the bayonet hoods reverse much more quickly
than most threaded ones do.

The 50mm f1/4 has a rubber flex one instead.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:

With the HN (threaded) hoods, yes. However, at least based on
the three lenses which I have with the HB (bayonet) hoods, each bayonet
seems to be designed to not be interchangeable with the others.

Yes; that's one reason I go with screw-mount instead. If you use the
rubber ones, they're easy to simply collapse when you put the lens
away. Of course, the other reason is because not all the lenses take
the bayonet hoods.

Bayonet hoods also have the great advantage that they mount on the lens
in a known orientation. They can thus be shaped properly, rather than
simply round, where the length is dictated by the frame corners and
is inadequate for the top and bottom, and the sides.

As for the other discussion of protection offered by the hoods,
I've at least bounced into things (doorframes and such) with the hood,
and while it gave, it sprang back to shape without breaking, and
protected the lenses on which they were mounted. This even applies to
the strangely-shaped one for the 18-70mm "kit" lens -- which I would
have thought would have been particularly fragile as a function of its
shape. So -- they put a good choice of plastic into those hoods.

I agree. I am not gentile with my gear, and typically carry the camera
on its strap around my neck and under my arm, and it's free to swing
around and hit things. Even when doing something like hiking at the
Grand Canyon, while I've smacked my camera around enough that it shows,
I've never had so much as a nick on any of my glass as a result, except
that one time where the lens was smashed into little pieces, which
wouldn't have been prevented by any kind of hood. Most of the time, the
hood is what hits something; at best, it bounces off, at worst, the hood
takes the fall for the lens. The one time that was even worse, the lens
ended up sacrificing itself on behalf of the camera, for which I was
extremely grateful.

I expect my camera to take some abuse; it looks like it's been through
a war at this point, and yet functions perfectly. Hitting the ground
lens first with enough force to turn the 50/1.4 into a collection of
little bits didn't even affect the focus calibration or the lens mount
in the slightest. For most other dangers, there are hoods, and I rarely
mount a lens without one.

While I'll probably mount the hoods backwards in the camera bag
for the longer lenses, I'll certainly swap them around to forwards when
they are on the camera. And the bayonet hoods reverse much more quickly
than most threaded ones do.

Most threaded ones don't reverse at all, which is kind of unfortunate,
as they clang around in my bag worse than any other piece of gear I have.
But most of the time I go out, I've only brought a few lenses, and I
just leave the hoods mounted till I get home. I do reverse the bayonet
hood on the 70-200 VR when it goes into the bag, of course, since it
won't fit otherwise, but it's a pain to flip it around when I want to
use the lens.

--
Jeremy |

According to Jeremy Nixon :
DoN. Nichols wrote:

[ ... ]

I agree. I am not gentile with my gear, and typically carry the camera
on its strap around my neck and under my arm, and it's free to swing
around and hit things. Even when doing something like hiking at the
Grand Canyon, while I've smacked my camera around enough that it shows,
I've never had so much as a nick on any of my glass as a result, except
that one time where the lens was smashed into little pieces, which
wouldn't have been prevented by any kind of hood. Most of the time, the
hood is what hits something; at best, it bounces off, at worst, the hood
takes the fall for the lens. The one time that was even worse, the lens
ended up sacrificing itself on behalf of the camera, for which I was
extremely grateful.

Which camera body was this? Does it feed into the eternal war
about the suitability of plastic for camera bodies? :-)

I expect my camera to take some abuse; it looks like it's been through
a war at this point, and yet functions perfectly. Hitting the ground
lens first with enough force to turn the 50/1.4 into a collection of
little bits didn't even affect the focus calibration or the lens mount
in the slightest.

In that case, I *certainly* want to know what body this is. :-)

For most other dangers, there are hoods, and I rarely
mount a lens without one.

While I'll probably mount the hoods backwards in the camera bag
for the longer lenses, I'll certainly swap them around to forwards when
they are on the camera. And the bayonet hoods reverse much more quickly
than most threaded ones do.

Most threaded ones don't reverse at all, which is kind of unfortunate,
as they clang around in my bag worse than any other piece of gear I have.
But most of the time I go out, I've only brought a few lenses, and I
just leave the hoods mounted till I get home. I do reverse the bayonet
hood on the 70-200 VR when it goes into the bag, of course, since it
won't fit otherwise, but it's a pain to flip it around when I want to
use the lens.

The 18-70mm kit lens is pretty useless with the hood reversed.
While you can get to the focus ring (which is most of the time
adequately handled by the camera's smarts), but you can't do anything
with the zoom ring, which the camera body doesn't (and *shouldn't*) try
to handle for you.

The 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 with a reversed hood gives good access to
the zoom (and macro focus) ring, but covers the focus ring. However, if
you are in manual focus mode, you can simply grip the hood itself to
focus, so all you lose is a bit of visibility of the focus scale, which
seems to wander depending on the zoom setting anyway, so who cares. :-)

The 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D with a reversed hood blocks the focus
ring *some* of the time, depending on zoom setting. This is the only
lens which I often carry with the hood reversed, because it is such a
big "funnel" -- or perhaps even "soupbowl". :-) And of course that one
is reversed when it goes in the camera bag. (FWIW -- the camera itself
never lives in there -- there isn't room, so perhaps I should call it
the "camera accessories bag". :-)

The only other AF lens which I have is the 50mm f1.4 -- pre "D"
and it has no bayonet for a lens hood. I wonder whether the later
versions have a bayonet. That one, of course, has the rubber pop-out
hood, but it spaces the default filter out a bit more distant from the
lens' front element than I would like. At least it isn't going to
vignette on a D70. :-) And, FWIW, the default filter for these lenses is
a "Hot Mirror" filter, because they sometimes get used on an N90s body
with the digital conversion by Kodak (NC2000e/c), which does *not* have
an IR-blocking filter on the sensor.

And I *do* like the new design of the lens caps with the pinch
points closer to the center, so when I am reaching into the lens hood, I
can easily remove the cap. And each cap is on a tether, so I don't have
to remember where I put it when I take it off the lens. :-)

I keep planning to make an extra set of double-sided foam tape
anchor points for the lens end of the tether, since the elastic ring is
always in the way of *something*. :-) I can stick it on a stable point
on the underside of all of these lenses and minimize the clutter. Why
don't they *sell* these with adhesive points on both ends? Well ...
I've got plenty of that double-sided foam tape to work with. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:

The one time that was even worse, the lens ended up sacrificing itself
on behalf of the camera, for which I was extremely grateful.

Which camera body was this? Does it feed into the eternal war
about the suitability of plastic for camera bodies? :-)

Nikon D2x. It's built like a tank, which is of course one of the reasons
we pay more for pro bodies. A D70, which is what I had previously,
wouldn't have fared so well, I suspect. Maybe there's a psychological
compensation effect -- my D70 never got banged around much, and had nary
a scratch when I sold it. I know the D2x can take it, so maybe I'm less
careful with it.

I expect my camera to take some abuse; it looks like it's been through
a war at this point, and yet functions perfectly. Hitting the ground
lens first with enough force to turn the 50/1.4 into a collection of
little bits didn't even affect the focus calibration or the lens mount
in the slightest.

In that case, I *certainly* want to know what body this is. :-)

There was a moment of panic, followed by some anxious testing back at
the hotel, and everything was still perfect. Except the lens, of course.
I collected all the pieces I could find, since I was out in a national
park and didn't want to litter; there were at least a dozen, including
broken glass.

The only other AF lens which I have is the 50mm f1.4 -- pre "D"
and it has no bayonet for a lens hood. I wonder whether the later
versions have a bayonet.

They do not.

And I *do* like the new design of the lens caps with the pinch
points closer to the center, so when I am reaching into the lens hood, I
can easily remove the cap.

They don't seem to grip as well, or something. They pop out too easily.

--
Jeremy |