1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Collapsible Lens hoods vs Metal RF Styles?

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by sokar, Feb 24, 2013.

  1. sokar

    sokar Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 30, 2011
    Hi All,

    I intend to purchase a lens hood for my Oly 17mm F/2.8. From searching online I can really only see that 2 alternatives exist, and was hoping for some feedback from users of each.

    The first is the 37mm threaded metal RF style hood that has the 2 RF slots. These are available cheaply online and look nice. I can recall reading here that due to the slots in the hood, the effectiveness of this style of hood is limited to protecting the front element of the lens. The amount of flare protection it provides is limited.

    The 2nd type available is a folding rubber hood that also contains a 37mm thread, but has the advantage of a 2nd thread on the front side for filters etc. The hood folds back over the lens when it is not required. I assume from the design that the rubber hood is slightly larger than the metal hood (deeper and wider) and has no RF styled slots. Therefore I assume it would provide protection to the front of the lens and be more resistant to flare. It may partially block the use of the VF1, but that is a minor issue.

    I would be interested to hear the opinions of members that have used either or both. I would need to order these online so therefore it is a bit of a guessing game, without having the opportunity to test these for myself.

    Thanks in advance.
  2. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    Um, the slots on the side shouldn't stop it from reducing flare. They would be at too oblique of an angle to have any effect. I have a couple of rubber hoods for other lenses, and they work fine. Mine don't fold back over the lens, but do make it no deeper. Much less drop protection from them compared to a solid hood however.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. sokar

    sokar Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 30, 2011
    Thanks Cruzan80,

    I cannot find either of these products in stores, so all feedback is beneficial.
  4. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    Err .... maybe not an advantage for adding filters, but nice for using a snap-in lens cap. Using both a filter and the hood may vignette your photos. You'll have to test to see.

    If you're vignetting, the fix is to use a step-up ring on the lens and then using larger diameter filters and hood.

    This also allows you to standardize filter sizes. The old Nikon film lenses all the way from 24mm to 200/f4 used 52mm filters. Very nice. I have used step-up rings to standardize my M43 lenses to 52mm wherever they were smaller than this.

    Re rubber, I have never felt that rubber gave my lens as much physical protection as metal since it just moves out of the way when the camera swings into something.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    I have both styles of hoods for my 17/2.8. I don't particularly like the rubber collapsible hoods and only use the metal RF style hoods when I'm not using filters, which is most of the time.

    I too buy only 52mm filters. I have step-up rings so I can use them on my lenses with 37mm & 46mm filter threads. I do have a wide-angle rubber 52mm hood that I can screw onto the front of the filter(s) if I feel I need a hood.

    I also have the 40-150R that's got 58mm threads, and fortunately the front glass area is quite small, so I can use a 58-52mm step-down ring and any of my 52mm filters without vignetting. I can still use the aforementioned 52mm wide-angle rubber hood at all focal lengths without vignetting.

    HTH! :biggrin:
    • Like Like x 1
  6. gsk3

    gsk3 Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 29, 2012
    The rubber hoods let you shoot through glass windows since they block *all* extraneous light by melding perfectly. It's a fairly large advantage for travel.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I seriously doubt if light coming in from the back-side will have any potential for flare or affecting the light meter. The resiliency of the rubber may give better protection by absorbing more shock and reducing the transferring of the energy to the lens.

    But the vented metal hoods look a whole lot better than the rubber. The vents will allow you to see through the hood for use with the VF1.

    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    For protection I would rather have a solid hood than a rubber hood any day of the week. A fixed rubber hood is not bad, but nobody makes those anymore. I still have a slip-on rubber hood for my Zuiko 50mm f/1.4.

    You should still be able to fit the same lens cap in the metal hood, by the way...

    For me it would be the metal hood all the way. I could imagine the advantage of pressing the rubber hood up against glass that gsk3 mentioned but I never shoot through glass like that so I wouldn't know. I'm sure a non-collapsible rubber hood would also be better for that than a collapsible one.
  9. sokar

    sokar Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 30, 2011
    Thanks to all for your responses. A RF metal hood it is then.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.