Different ITOOY lens hoods for ? lenses

[ironringer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Attached are pictures of my lens hood type ITOOY.

Q1: Why are there two or three styles of the ITOOY? On websites I see a different style with a longer black "hood" and a thinner chrome base.

Q2: What lenses does my ITOOY fit?

Q3: Is the 42mm reverse plastic cap the correct cap for my ITOOY? On websites I have seen a snap-in plastic cap, that would be useful when you leave the hood on the lens. Can both the reverse and snap-in caps be used with my ITOOY?

Q4: When was the ITOOY first introduced, and its subsequent styles?

Thank you Leica enthusiasts in advance, for your advice and knowledge.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[UliWer]

The ITOOY was first made for the 1:3.5/5cm Elmar with M bayonet so it may be first introduced in 1954 or a little bit later.

 

It is not completely clear why there was first a version with small chrome rim and longer black part and later a version with broader chrome rim and shorter black part, which is alltogether a little bit shorter than the earlier version.

 

My first theory was that its length was reduced to avoid intusion into your view through the finder. Though when I compared I could not find any relevant difference of intrusion. This is true for the M3 and M2 as well as for screw-mount bodies up to the IIIf which could use the later 1:2.8/5cm version of the Elmar with screw mount. Though there might be a difference for the IIIg which had a different finder. I have no IIIg, so I can't try.

 

As far as I know there was no specific cap for the ITOOY, the plastic cap you show was for the IUFOO-hood for 90 and 135mm, though good that it fits the ITOOY as well.

Edited March 21, 2014 by UliWer

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

...

It is not completely clear why there was first a version with small chrome rim and longer black part and later a version with broader chrome rim and shorter black part....

 

My only idea on the matter is that the first small chrome ring was so narrow that engraving on it the code and the lenses it was made for would have resulted unpractical.... and it would have been unesthetical (and probably, unpractical too) to paint them in white on the black part, as they did on the first version, which bears the white writing "Elmar 5 cm". On the hair-splitting side... .... in the 2nd version the chrome ring maybe was made SO wide to standardize that component with the identical one for the IROOA hood... which bears no less than SIX lenses' specs (35s and 50s) and needed lot of space...

[derleicaman]

I am currently using the 2nd version hood on my vintage 3 element chrome 90/4 Elmar M. Much more compact a package than the proper hood for the 90 and in my opinion just as effective.

[luigi bertolotti]

...

It is not completely clear why there was first a version with small chrome rim and longer black part and later a version with broader chrome rim and shorter black part, which is alltogether a little bit shorter than the earlier version....

 

 

UliWer... I have an idea about the global shortening, which I cannot check because have not the old ("long") version, and you can verify, having both : what about mounting it REVERSED on the Elmars ? Isn't by chance that you can do it with the shorter version and not with the first one , for some interference with the lens' base ?

[UliWer]

Your idea was great, Luigi, since I never before realized that you could mount the ITOOY reversed on the lens....

 

Though it doesn't make much difference: both fit on the extracted Elmar, the later version is fixed a little bit deeper on the lens, the earlier one stands higher up from the lenses rim.

[jc_braconi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Your idea was great, Luigi, since I never before realized that you could mount the ITOOY reversed on the lens....

 

Though it doesn't make much difference: both fit on the extracted Elmar, the later version is fixed a little bit deeper on the lens, the earlier one stands higher up from the lenses rim.

 

If you have a filter on, you cannot use the flat cap.(earlier version.)

[UliWer]

With an original Leitz filter my old ITOOY version (small chrome band) fits on the lens - no problem in straightforward direction, not very smooth but it works and fits properly in reverse position.