Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] hoods

Subject: Re: [OM] hoods
From: dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:48:03 -0700
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute here.
1. The 'tulip' shape is exactly equivilent to a rectangular, full-length hood, but physically smaller and less obtrusive. Do the 3-D geometry on your CAD program. It doesn't matter whether the light path is interrupted close to or far away from the lens. Whether that light ray to the far corner of the image sneaks past a corner of a rectangular hood 4" away from the glass or through a curved notch 3/8" from the glass, the effect is the same. I assume tulip hood designs became common after is became relatively easy to design them with computers.

2. The 'tulip' shape is no more effective at longer focal lengths on a zoom than any other hood design.

also
3. They are sexy for the same reason that flowers and Julia O'Keefe's paintings of them are sexy, flowers are sex organs and many are reminiscent in form to human sexual organs.

om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Actually, hoods don't "HAVE" to be petal shaped for a zoom.  But if they
weren't, the lens designers would have to design a hood that was optimized
only for the wide-angle setting of the lens.  Any telephoto-designed hood
would vignette at the wide-angle setting.  So they opt for a compromise.

Skip


Original Message:
-----------------
From:  Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

They have to be petals for zooms.
Every little bit of shade helps, especially with zooms.

Besides, they're sexy.



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz