On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:49:43 -0500, "Tom" wrote:

>David Neuman-Ruether>
>> I would be satisfied with the vignette shown from the 72mm shade (what is
>it - I want one! ;-).

>From www.bhphoto.com:
>General Brand 72mm Screw-In Wide Angle Rubber Lens Hood
>Price $12.95
>B&H# GBLHWA72
>
>At least that's how I got my hands on it. Elsewhere, it might be called a
>Bower 72mm Wide Angle Collapsable Rubber Lens Hood.

D U R N ! I ->detest<- Bower products - the threads
never fit right. I've spent too much time reworking
badly-machined threads on Bower adapter rings, and a
big non-WA Bowers shade for 77mm will not stay attached
to what it is threaded into. Still worth a try, though...

>Browsing around at B&H, I noticed a wide angle hood from a Canon Wide Angle
>lens, Catalog # CAHWD58. As you might already have this wide-angle adapter
>and hood, does it fit the Raynox?

I will buy one for the Canon WD-58, but it will not
fit the Raynox, which needs it much more...

>I know Cokin has some sort of lens hood for use with their filter adapter
>systems, and Century has them as well for their wide angle and anamorphic
>lens. They are probably all quite expensive, but I do have my eye on that
>Century Anamorphic adapter, someday perhaps. ;-)

>D. N-R>
>> I use now a 72mm Nikkor shade for their old 20mm f3.5, and add a plastic
>can-top that just fits - with a
>> rectangle cut-out of the right size in it (the plastic is painted black,
>the cap just snaps on and allows
>> rotation of the rectangle to line up with the image). The result helps,
>but it is too shallow to be ideal.
>> For other WA converters, I use a small "lip" rubber-banded to the top of
>the converter, extending
>> out just short of entering the image.

>This sounds interesting, do you have any pictures of these devices you've
>cobbled together?

I may add them this week to my web page (along with a
Premiere 6 bug and cure...).

>(As I look at a Tupperware container, and consider cutting a hole in the
>bottom and painting it flat black...
>hey that just might work!)

I made one of these for a Nikkor 15mm f5.6 that caught
just a bit of side light on the center of the front
element (made a crescent moon in the picture), and it
worked quite well. Thanks for reminding me. BTW, I cut
the hole large by a bit and bent 4 strips of sticky-back
foam strip-insulation around the hole edge at 4 points
so it slid onto the lens easily, stayed well, and could be
adjusted easily...

>D. N-R>
>> I've been tempted to try to find a large, deep hood for the Raynox to use
>with step-up rings
>> (I have a 72->82...), then use the "cut-out rectangle in cap" method of
>restricting the view.

>As you might have seen from my photos, I tried a 72mm-77mm step up ring,
>with a 77mm rubber lens hood (similar to the 72mm lens hood). The
>vignetting was nearly the same as with the 72mm lens hood alone.
>(see last photo at
>http://members.directvinternet.com/~tjstrano/vignette/notes.html)
>
>B&H doesn't sell any rubber lens hoods bigger than 77mm. They do sell metal
>lens hoods from B+W that go up further, for $82 and up. I really prefer
>rubber hoods anyway, since if the camera was set down on a table and the
>lower lip of the wide-angle adapter bumped the table, the rubber might
>absorb some of the shock.
>
>D. N-R>
>> For those wondering why we would bother, it is due to the excellence of
>the
>> Raynox .66X image quality (sharpness to corners and low linear distortion
>relative to others) from
>> WA to about 2/3rds the way to tele zoom...
>
>Precisely why I bought this adapter. Thank you for the comprehensive tests,
>David.
>
>- Tom in NJ

They are at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm

>P.S. No, I don't work for B&H, I only mention them because they are a
>convenient reference to use when explaning specific pieces of equipment, as
>they have pictures of most items. Yeah, I spend a lot of money there too.
>;-)

Likewise - they have been good dealers for decades...