Brother can you spare a hood

[dk0]

I have seen at least a dozen 85/1.2 60-year anniversary lenses for sale in the last year. None of them had hoods. I was told that many photographers simply tossed the hood aside since this lens is used for potraits in studios with controlled lighting. Others have said that this specific hood was too short, and therefore of not much use.

Nevertheless, I recently purchased one of these fine lenses without the hood, but I would still like to have one.

If there is anyone out there who has forgotten about it, tossed it aside, or otherwise does not use/need it, please consider selling it to me. I will pay an embarrassing amount for it.

I also posted a thread in the buy/sell forum, but people seldom look there unless they are buying.

Thank you,

David
P.S. I could also really use a 77/86 ring....

 

[wang]

I have a 85 1.2 metal hood from my second 85 1.2 lens. It does look nice with the lens.

In practice, I don't think it is a very good hood. For my 85 1.2 I normally use 77/86 ring and metal hood 5. This 1.2 lens has a large entrance for light, the original 1.2 is so small that it is definitely insufficent to stop light from entering the lens from unwanted directions.

I had bitter experience with my 100 2 and metal hood 4 and I certainly does not wish to repeat it again.

The original 1.2 hood is for collectors, it has no practical use. The length of which is similar to hood 3.

Sorry, I have no intention of selling my 1.2 hood yet.

 

[pham_minh_son]

There has to be a lenshood somewhere that second/third/fourth etc hand owners like myself and David cannot find to put it on our precious Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm F1.2 Anniversary that we all paid for such a high price and not having them.

Chi we all understand that you want to keep your with your lens. What David is asking for is someone out there who has these lens shade without having the lens could sell it to him.

-Son

 

[wang]

Son, I think basically there is simply no practical reason for having this 1.2 hood. I am keeping mine only because when I am selling my 1.2 lens in the future, I could ask for a better price with this hood.

 

[fotografz]

I slightly disagree that the hood has no practical use. I have a 77 to 86 step-up ring and use a #4 metal hood with a metal cap.
It effectively reduces side flare because the front element of the 85/1.2 is so far forward.

It is conceivable that other "non-collector" shade solutions could be adapted. 77 to 93 adapter and a Lee Pro shade would be one way ( I use that in studio when shooting with strobes). There are many solutions to control flare using a longer shade that is larger in diameter to avoid vignetting. 77mm to many different sized adapters are fairly common.

 

[deshojo]

My 50yr 85mm f1.2 uses a standard 77-82 stepping ring, followed by a Contax 82/86 Ring, and then a Contax Metal Hood 3 with metal cap.

It sounds convoluted, but it looks fine, and more importantly offers excellent shading.

 

[fotografz]

The 77 directly to 86 ring is a standard Contax issue also and eliminates the secondary 82 to 86 step-up ring... and allows use of the Hood #4

 

[dk0]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Just one more question along these lines. Is there anyone out there who purchased a 50-year Anniversary copy of this lens in its original packaging? Or someone who has certain knowledge of what hood was actually packaged (or officialy recommended by Contax) with the 50-year anniversary lens?

Many folks seem to suggest that it was the Metal Hood #4, but the hood packaged later with the 60-year Anniversary lens is much smaller, about the size of the #3 Hood. So, was the #3 hood or the #4 hood packaged with the 50-year anniversay lens? And, if it was indeed the #4 hood with the 50-year lens, why did Contax change the size for its 60-year lens, since they are supposedly identical in construction (except for the MM mount).

Thanks for anyone/evert\yone who can shed some light on this.

 

[wang]

Well, let me illustrate my point with photos. This is the Contax 85/1.2 hood I was talking about on my 85 1.2 lens. Its length is about the same as Contax hood 3.

This hood looks nice with the lens.

 

[wang]

If I show you another photo of another angle showing the hood, you will see that unwanted light can enter the lens. Basically, this hood is too short and leave large areas of the lens exposed, this will creat flares and reduces both resolution and contrast.

 

[wang]

On the other hand, if you use 77/86 ring with hood 5, you will get something like this.

I had bad experience with using hood 4 on my 100 2. Hood 5 is heavy but it gives the lens enough protection. It is not long enough to obstruct the image forming light from entering the lens.

 

[wang]

I have another question to all of you. What do you think will happen if I put a step down ring, say 77 to 55 on my 85 1.2 lens ? Will it vignette ?

 

[dk0]

Thanks Chi for addressing the technical issues of these hoods. I am very skeptical about using Hood #5 on the 85/1.2 when shooting wide-open. I think it may prevent flare as you say, but I also think it is too long and will introduce a higher degree of light fall-off at the edges (than with a shorter hood like #4).

However, my last post was more from a collector viewpoint. The one-piece 85/1.2 hood was introduced with the 60-year anniversary lens. It did not exist when Contax introduced the 50-year anniversary lens. So, my basic question is "what lens hood originally came with the 50-year anniversary lens?".

Many people claim it is the #4 hood, but then why is the later one-piece 85/1.2 hood smaller (like the size of the #3 hood)?

Thanks,

David}

 

[wang]

If you understand the light travelling pathway of 85 1.2, you will know that hood 5 does not affect the 85 even when it is wide open at 1.2.

The way to assess the suitability of the hood or filter is to look at the lens wide open. The margins of each lens elements forms a straight line in the case of our 85 mm lens. No parts of hood 5 stays in the way of this line and so there is no light falling off at edges when you are using this hood.

 

[albert4321]

"The way to assess the suitability of the hood or filter is to look at the lens wide open."

The way I understand from my 4x5 days is that the image circle increase when you stop down, not wide open. Am I missing something or it does not apply to 35mm format?

 

[dk0]

Chi, I am afraid you are wrong about the hood #5, but I think another thread needs to be started on that topic.

I would like to close out this thread by expressing my gratitude for a member of this forum who was kind enough to sell me his 85/1.2 Anniversary hood.

So, since this topic generated some interesting, albeit pedantic information regarding lens shading and hoods, please see my new thread on a simple study I performed this weekend.

Thanks again!

 

[wang]

David,why are you so interested to prove that I am wrong ? Are you alright ? Even if you managed to provee that i am wrong in some way, so what ? Human acquires knowledge, they don't born with it. People do make mistakes before the right concept is acquired. Making mistakes happens in the process of acquiring knowledge. Don't be so conscious intelling who is right and wrong.

There is no absolute right and wrong in the choice of hood. Although as you say hood 5 might be blocking the light in some very minor way. The use of hood 5 could be superior in the way for the control of flare. The corner definition and indeed the definition of the image as a whole could be superior to the use of shorter hoods.
We are all in the process of acquiring knowledges during which we should all be forgiven of making mistakes.