Question about lens hoods

[ijm5012]

I was wondering, does the lens hood for the Panasonic 35-100 fit on to a Panasonic 14-140 II? Both lenses have a 58mm filter thread diameter, and both hoods are attached via a Panasonic bayonet mount.

I'm asking because I want a lens hood that will better shade the rather large front element on my 14-140 II when using it at longer focal lengths. The lens hood supplied with the 14-140 II is a rather shallow, petal-shaped lens hood due to the wide angle of the lens. The problem is that it doesn't do as good a job at longer focal lengths.

So, has anybody tried using the hood from a 35-100 on the 14-140 II, or if somebody owns both lens, would you be willing to try this out for me?


Thanks!

 

[ijm5012]

So I'm guessing nobody own a 35-100 and a 14-140 II then...?

 

[fortwodriver]

You run the risk of vignetting on the 14mm. The 14mm sees substantially more at the margins than the 35mm. The only way to know for sure is to try. Most lens hoods are fairly inefficient at long focal lengths unless they're made very long.

Years ago, I remember seeing some canon guys using a sock-like thing over their hoods when super-zooms were en-vogue (like the 28-135)... At 28mm users would pull back the sock and let the hood do the job. At 135, the sock would extend beyond the edge of the hood by about an inch and provide better flare control.

Do you notice flare that much? Do you use a filter on the lens? Modern lenses are surprisingly flare-resistant (especially the m43 lenses). You may not really need a hood.

Personally, I really only use hoods on my lenses to keep my fingers off the front elements. In days of yore, I always managed to get a finger or thumb print on the front of the lens. Hoods stopped that.

 

[ijm5012]

I know that it will vignette at 14mm, that's not a concern. The lens it was packaged with starts at 35mm.

While I do manage to get some flare in photographs, the biggest reason(s) I use a lens hood are to protect the front element, but also to increase contrast in the image. The less stray light you have entering the lens, the better the contrast would be. And yes, I do use filters on my lenses (CPLs, NDs, etc.), and even though they are multicoated, the best way to protect from flare is to eliminate the stray light.

While the provided lens hood does a decent job at shorter focal lengths, it's pretty much useless at longer ones. That's why I'm interested in the lens hood that came with the 35-100, since it would do a far better job at shading the front element at longer focal lengths. I just want to make sure that it would fit on the bayonet mount that is on the 14-140 II.



To anyone who has a 35-100 lens hood, could you let me know how tall the lens hood is when it is sitting flat on a table?

You run the risk of vignetting on the 14mm. The 14mm sees substantially more at the margins than the 35mm. The only way to know for sure is to try. Most lens hoods are fairly inefficient at long focal lengths unless they're made very long.

Years ago, I remember seeing some canon guys using a sock-like thing over their hoods when super-zooms were en-vogue (like the 28-135)... At 28mm users would pull back the sock and let the hood do the job. At 135, the sock would extend beyond the edge of the hood by about an inch and provide better flare control.

Do you notice flare that much? Do you use a filter on the lens? Modern lenses are surprisingly flare-resistant (especially the m43 lenses). You may not really need a hood.

Personally, I really only use hoods on my lenses to keep my fingers off the front elements. In days of yore, I always managed to get a finger or thumb print on the front of the lens. Hoods stopped that.