Ring to replace new style Lens Hoods

[esquire53]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just out of interest, does anyone know whether the new 21/F3.4 comes with a thread protector in the box?

 

The 21mm 1:1.4 does not, so I guess the 3.4 has non as well.

[hoppyman]

I'm not Leica Camera's PR department. The thread protector might be a reasonable inclusion with this lens. I just personally am not bothered since it wasn't. If I had one it would still be in the bottom of the unused leather pouch.

I like the hood a lot compared to the older designs and I always use mine.

Someone keener than I might check if the thread protector from the Summilux 35 or a Summarit(?) fits. If they do they must be available from Solms. Ask them?

[Robert_M]

 

Just out of interest, does anyone know whether the new 21/F3.4 comes with a thread protector in the box?

 

My SEM 21mm/3.4 did not come with the ring. It is a recent purchase and I'm certain that it is new production from this year. It uses the same hood as the 24mm/3.8 lens. This threw me initially since the hood has a cutout in the corner, and I wondered why this would be for a 21mm lens (which needs an external finder normally. Then I realized (and verified with the specs on line) that the hood is the same part number as the 24mm hood. And, for an M8, there are frame lines and thus there is reason for a cutout.

 

I might add that one could use this info to take another poke at the often repeated mantra that summarit lenses are low price since they use common parts with other lenses. Here you have the new, highly praised, premium 21mm SEM lens which uses a hood from another lens and keeps a hood cutout which serves no purpose at 21mm. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for reduced cost on all lenses by using common parts. I just poke fun at those silly comments about certain other "inferior" lens lines.

 

 

RM

[Carduelis]

I'm not Leica Camera's PR department. The thread protector might be a reasonable inclusion with this lens. I just personally am not bothered since it wasn't. If I had one it would still be in the bottom of the unused leather pouch.

I like the hood a lot compared to the older designs and I always use mine.

Someone keener than I might check if the thread protector from the Summilux 35 or a Summarit(?) fits. If they do they must be available from Solms. Ask them?

 

I thought I would try the thread protector cap from my Summarit 75 mm lens which has the same 46 mm filter size as the Elmar, but alas it would not screw on. Although you are not bothered about the situation, I just feel that for an £1800 lens, you should be able to remove the hood and cap off the exposed thread for other applications as I have previously proposed or if you simply do not wish to use the hood (such as using an M Summarit out of its box). I note that an additional lens cap would also need to be used with such a thread cap.

[wattsy]

I might add that one could use this info to take another poke at the often repeated mantra that summarit lenses are low price since they use common parts with other lenses. Here you have the new, highly praised, premium 21mm SEM lens which uses a hood from another lens and keeps a hood cutout which serves no purpose at 21mm. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for reduced cost on all lenses by using common parts. I just poke fun at those silly comments about certain other "inferior" lens lines.

 

Leica have used the same hood for different lenses on numerous occasions (off the top of my head, the first version of the Tri-Elmar used the same hood as the 24 Elmarit ASPH, the 28 Elmarit ASPH uses the same hood as the 35 Summicron ASPH, etc.). This doesn't change the fact that the Summarit lenses are marketed separately to the other lenses and were introduced under Stephen Lee's regime as a lower cost entry into the M system. Stating that isn't having a dig at the range, nor suggesting the lenses are "inferior" – it's just stating a fact. I'm sure all Leica lenses use some common components (where possible) but the Summarit range takes this to a new level with shared lens barrels, etc. They also cut costs in other areas – for example, compare the double brass focussing helicoid arrangement of the 35 Summicron with the single non-brass helicoid of the 35 Summarit. None of this matters if the lenses are good and the two are I own (35 and 50) most certainly are. I also had the 75 Summarit loaned to me for a while last year and that was a fine lens too.

 

Going back to the main topic, I'm surprised to learn that the 21 Super Elmar and 24 Elmar do not come with a thread protector ring to use in place of the hood. It sounds like the Leica engineers or product people simply didn't foresee the possible need for one. Might be worth emailing them to see what they have to say on the matter?

[Carduelis]

Going back to the main topic, I'm surprised to learn that the 21 Super Elmar and 24 Elmar do not come with a thread protector ring to use in place of the hood. It sounds like the Leica engineers or product people simply didn't foresee the possible need for one. Might be worth emailing them to see what they have to say on the matter?

 

Just been in touch with Leica customer services who said they will not manufacture a thread protector ring for a 24 Elmar lens. It seems as though thread protector rings do not exist for certain lenses (that are supplied with hoods) and Leica has no intention of manufacturing them. I suppose this comes as no surprise for financial and re-supply reasons.

 

I have to say that I believe the omission of a thread protector ring/ additional lens cap is wrong in principle. Photographers should be free to choose whether they use the hood or not and to be able to cover up the exposed outer thread when the hood is not in use.