I don't like the built-in sliding hoods that are pervasive on many current version M lenses. I've always thought that a hood should not only protect from glare, but also protect the front of a lens from dings. I've had several dented and warped metal hoods from my Nikon days to support this premise - the fronts of the lenses they were protecting were undamaged. I always leave a hood on its lens, even in the bag.

With built-in hoods, if the hood is damaged, the whole lens is essentially damaged. Does anybody use third-party screw-in metal hoods by e.g. B+W, Tiffen on M lenses in lieu of the sliding hood? I'm especially interested in a solution for the current version 90E. Thanks.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002

Answers

And that is why I only own 1 lens with the retractable hood.

Ken, I sympathize with you because I feel the same way about my 75 lux. But is it really practical to keep the hood on telephoto lenses at all times? I do this for the shorter focal lengths in my kit. I think your only recourse would be to use the previous version 90 Tele Elmarit (thin) in place of the 90E. I have one and its a wonderful performer. Also, the 12575 reversible hood for the 135 mates onto this lens and gives the best of both worlds in terms of protection and readiness.

One other thing... the flare problem with the 90 TE is GREATLY exaggerated.

My 0.02

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002.

There always seems to be a great deal of moaning about Leica lens hoods. I've read threads from people complaining about the clumsy round, vented hoods, the dinky rectangular ones that don't line up correctly, etc., etc. I've read threads about alternatives, from the B&H rubber hoods to the tiny 50mm f2.8 Elmarit-M hood. I, too, change-up lens hoods like I change film. But, it occurs to me that the ultimate solution is the built-in lens hood. It's always there and it does the job it's intended to do. And one is les likely to spend free time thinking of alternatives if it's not a hood that can be replaced. I fall into the same gear-head trap a lot, too. I think if we shoot more , we have less time to worry about lens hoods. Just my opinion.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), January 20, 2002.

I'm with you, Ken. I prefer the separate hoods because for the most part they're more effective at blocking stray light, as well as offereing real protection against accidents. The built-in hood on my 50mm Summicron-R is little more than a decoration.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 20, 2002.

Go to your local hardware store and buy some double sided velcro strapping. Use it to keep the sliding hood extended. This not only protects the lens as well as separate hoods do; but, also the slight flexibility of the velcro material acts like a shock absorber.

The only thing that greatly exagerated the flare from my now long gone TE was the film I ran through it. I am willing to accept that this lens may have a larger sample variation than normal and yours is fine but mine was not.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), January 20, 2002.

I wish all my lenses had retractable hoods. Messing with the clip-on or screw-on types is a major PITA. However, what I would like is if Leica made those pull-out hoods so they locked with a quarter-turn.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 20, 2002.

Jay,

I agree about the convenience of the built-in hoods. Always there, never forgotten in the bottom of that other bag. But, a twist-lock built-in? I like that idea. I think we should take up a collection to send you to Solms for a couple of days. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 20, 2002.

Good idea, Jay!! I am sure that the "wizards" of Solms have thought about this issue and I would be interested in hearing their rationale for not proceding. I bet that there is a structural/engineering reason...(8>))--

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), January 20, 2002.

Ken: I feel exactly as you do. I like John Collier's suggestion re the velcro, but have not tried it yet. On my 50 Summilux, I have used a 46-55 step up ring, then two 55mm filter rings with the glass removed. This was an inexpensive fix that is working well. Alternatively, you can buy screw-in 46mm hoods for the Contax G lenses, but they are expensive and I've only seen them in the titanium finish. Lastly, I like Jay's solution best, but bet it will be awhile before we see anything like that from Leica, and when we do it will likely not be a cost-efficient reason for a lens upgrade.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 20, 2002.

B&H has a B+W 46mm aluminum hood that they can special order for $27. I wonder if there might be a problem with blocking the 90 framelines, though.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002.

I haven't seen that hood (46mm above)in particular, but my experience with aftermarket "universal" hoods is that they stick out too wide and block a ton of finder. I love the built in hoods for their convenience and not intruding in the finder much. My current 50 and 90 are not particualrily flare prone, and the hoods seem to work well enough. I wish that the lens caps fit over them instead of the front element, and a "locking twist" would be a nice touch.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 20, 2002.

I don't like retractable hoods very much on these lenses. Whenever you hit something by accident the hood easily slips back and doesn't lock in place as it ought to do. I don't think that is very much protection for the front element to be honest. I wish that Leica brings back the snap on or screw in hoods rather than the retractable hoods. (from experience with the Summicron-R ROM lens).

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

I wish I could take credit for thinking up the twist-lock, but I distinctly remember my 400/3.5 AIS Nikkor had a pull-out hood that had threads on the inside so that when you pulled it out you turned it a few turns and it became rigid. A twist-lock would just be quicker. As to the theory that a rigid hood protects the lens better than a retractible one, for major bangs maybe. But whereas a retractible hood will provide an elastic collision, a rigid hood will be an inelastic collision and if I remember my freshman physics, transfer nearly all the force to the lens itself.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 20, 2002.

Sorry to correct you there Jay but an "elastic" collision is one with no loss of energy so that would be your rigid hood example where the lens falls on the hood and bounces around for awhile potentially transferring damaging forces to the rest of the lens. If the hood were to retract or deform this would be an "inelastic" collision. Nevertheless, the majority of reversible hoods on the older M lenses were made of deformable plastic so I would rather the replaceable plastic hood fail catastrophically than a metal hood permanently affixed to the camera suffer POTENTIALLY catastrophic failure.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002.

So, it works like a car that's designed to crumple up on impact to save the occupants. In the process of folding up, energy is absorbed and dissipated.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002.

The twist/lock idea was brought up in a customers<->Leica chat held last year on the Leica-camera website:

16:10:03 DuaneBirkey:
One thing I would really like to see on future R and M lenses is a built-in hood that locks into place in some form, either with internal threads or some sort of bayonet system. It is frustrating to have to re-position the hood every time you change lenses... A locking hood also helps keep the protect the front element to a certain extent. It certainly is possible as Canon had that feature on some of their FD lenses like the 200 f/2.8.

16:21:29 LeicaCameraAG:
A lens hood with some sort of a bayonet lock is very useful to prevent the lens hood from sliding back. In new lenses we will integrate this feature

Source: http://www.leica- camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/chat/3.pdf page 2, top.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), January 21, 2002.

Oops. I missed pasting 3 important words in the Leica reply:

"...whenever technically possible"

Sorry.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), January 21, 2002.

My 50 'lux-M (from 1973) has a separate rigid slotted circular shade, my 90 Elmarit-M has a sliding shade and my Tri-Elmar has no shade because, according to Leica, none is needed since the front element is recessed into the barrel. On balance, I think a separate rigid shade is the best idea for lens protection.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

I take issue with the statement that the majority of hoods on earlier M lenses were made of deformable plastic. The only such hood I know of was the plastic version of the venerable vented 35/50 hood which appeared on the 1980-94 version of the 50/2 (of course I'm sure somebody will know of others). Otherwise all the add-on M hoods I've seen were metal with the exception of the 21/28 hood for the 3.4 S/A and v1 and v2 28 Elmarits, which were plastic but very rigid.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

Hello Jay,

My 1st gen. Noctilux (58mm thread) has a rigid plastic sprung clip on lenshood. A big hat for a big beast...:-)

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.