Thread Protector Rings and The Leica Achilles Heel

[Danner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am I the only one who thinks Leica created a very poor design with the lasted generation screw-on aluminum hoods and the exposed aluminum threaded (inside and out) front of the lens.  I see lots of these offered used with damaged threads, missing protector rings, and scuffed and scratched hoods.  The whole design is a cup of weak-tea, IMHO.

Dear Leica, please bring back the snap-on plastic hoods, and keep a good supply of replacement hoods in inventory.

[AndreasG]

In my 35plus years of using Leica M cameras I never happened to damage a thread and I only rarely use a hood or a filter. Usually the hoods a kept in a box at home, for decades.

[pippy]

16 minutes ago, Danner said:

...I see lots of these offered used with damaged threads, missing protector rings, and scuffed and scratched hoods...

I think that says more about the owners that the design of the lenses.

For a number of years I've owned both a 75mm and 90mm Summarit which share these features and I doubt that there is a mark on any of the items. Just for clarity that includes - in each case - the lens; the protective ring; the original lens cap; the hood; the hood's cap.

Like Andreas says above I haven't damaged so much as one filter-thread in my entire life and, unlike Andreas, I always use both a filter and a hood.

Some folks are just careless.

Philip.

[pgk]

35 minutes ago, Danner said:

Dear Leica, please bring back the snap-on plastic hoods, and keep a good supply of replacement hoods in inventory.

Dear Leica, please don't! The latest generation hood seem to be the most accurately fitting and efficient.

Edited July 7, 2021 by pgk

[evikne]

The protector ring looks nice when mounted, but it's a little cumbersome to have so many separate parts to keep track of. For my 35 FLE I have a lens hood, filter, protector ring and two different caps.

Edited July 7, 2021 by evikne

[pippy]

8 minutes ago, evikne said:

The protector ring looks nice when mounted, but it's a little cumbersome to have so many separate parts (hood, filter, protector ring) to keep track of.

How so, evikne?

With my 75 and 90 Summarit lenses I simply keep the hood reverse-mounted with the hood-cap fitted on top for protection. The ring and lens-cap stay at home in the box. True; I do have to keep the hood-cap safe when the lens is being used but looking after a lens-cap is something I do regularly with other lenses so no need to learn new habits.

If I was to criticise anything about the design of any of these items it would be the lightness of the gauge of metal used for the caps; the older style metal caps were more robust.

Philip.

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Danner said:

Am I the only one who thinks Leica created a very poor design with the lasted generation screw-on aluminum hoods and the exposed aluminum threaded (inside and out) front of the lens.  

Yes. 

[lct]

3 hours ago, Danner said:

Am I the only one who thinks Leica created a very poor design with the lasted generation screw-on aluminum hoods and the exposed aluminum threaded (inside and out) front of the lens.

Very poor i would not say so but i dislike screw-in or screw-on hoods generally. I much prefer bayonet hoods a la Zeiss or Cosina. Leica tried them with "steel rim" 35/2 v1 lenses but preferred inferior (to me) clip-on hoods i don't know why.

[hdmesa]

55 minutes ago, lct said:

Very poor i would not say so but i dislike screw-in or screw-on hoods generally. I much prefer bayonet hoods a la Zeiss or Cosina. Leica tried them with "steel rim" 35/2 v1 lenses but preferred inferior (to me) clip-on hoods i don't know why.

Probably due to Leica wanting or preferring to use square hoods over the round ones. The bayonet hoods on my CV lenses have a little bit of play to them when locked on, and that would be an OCD nightmare for keeping a square hood aligned – they would always look crooked. Case in point is my CV 21 1.4, which never quite looks straight with the cinema-style square hood attached.

[lct]

22 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Probably due to Leica wanting or preferring to use square hoods over the round ones. The bayonet hoods on my CV lenses have a little bit of play to them when locked on, and that would be an OCD nightmare for keeping a square hood aligned – they would always look crooked. Case in point is my CV 21 1.4, which never quite looks straight with the cinema-style square hood attached.

None of my ZM and VM bayonet hoods have significant play i must say and the worse misaligned square hoods i know of are Leica's so far (35/2 v4's). Now those are clip-on hoods admittedly.

[hdmesa]

24 minutes ago, lct said:

None of my ZM and VM bayonet hoods have significant play i must say and the worse misaligned square hoods i know of are Leica's so far (35/2 v4's). Now those are clip-on hoods admittedly.

It's not significant play because they have round hoods, but there is play – just enough to trigger Leica's OCD if the hood were to be square. That's not to say Leica could not create a bayonet mount without any play.

[lct]

6 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

It's not significant play because they have round hoods, but there is play – just enough to trigger Leica's OCD if the hood were to be square.

There are square Cosina hoods too. Mine is this one (CV LH-12):

 

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!

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, lct said:

There are square Cosina hoods too. Mine is this one (CV LH-12):

 

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!

Oh yeah. I forgot the CV 21 3.5 I tried had one, too, and it aligned just fine. Maybe it's just my copy of the 21 1.4 that is little "off" with its giant hood.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Probably due to Leica wanting or preferring to use square hoods over the round ones.

Square hoods are a better, more efficient design, if that is the idea is to shield extraneous light. I don't understand the idea of round ones which are intrinsically inefficient. 

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

Square hoods are a better, more efficient design, if that is the idea is to shield extraneous light. I don't understand the idea of round ones which are intrinsically inefficient. 

And the square ones look cooler as a bonus 🙂 I mainly have the round hood on the CVs that use them as protection versus shade.

[lct]

Square hoods are more protective due to the lack of holes but they block optical VFs more than round vented hoods in my experience. Unless they are as vestigial as current Leica ones at least.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Square hoods are more protective due to the lack of holes but they block optical VFs more than round vented hoods in my experience. Unless they are as vestigial as current Leica ones at least.

Lens-hoods are a subject within themselves. So many things which can be discussed!

Personally having grown up (teenage years) with both screw-in and clip-on hoods for my Nikkor lenses I never had any issues with the screw-in types but very frequently had problems with the clip-on ones bouncing off so perhaps my preference for screw-in hoods stems from here?

I love Leica's clip-on and reversible hoods such as those for the tiny 21mm f4; the 35mm / 50mm and the 90mm / 135mm lenses because they stay put! Conversely the clip-on plastic thing for the 28mm Elmarit ASPH v1 is both Brilliant and Bloody Awful at the same time! It's brilliant because it is absolutely tiny and even although it isn't vented / pierced there is no v/f cut off whatsoever. Also because it is made in 2/3 square format it offers near-maximum performance. Unfortunately it is also Bloody Awful because the clip design is so poor that it clips-off FAR too easily. The v2 of the same lens sorted the latter but the downside was that the hood was HUGE.

So Holes! First hood I ever bought for a Leica (still in my teens) was a 'barn-door' thing for my dad's old 50mm f2 Summmitar. OK; it was an akward thing when box-folded shut but - for those of you unfamiliar with the type - it opened-up in near-perfect shape and was rear-vented all along the top-rear of the hood so as not to impede any of the v/f or r/f windows.

Perhaps it's time for Leica to consider bringing back Barn-Door Vented Hoods?

Just think of the marketing possibilities! Black-Chrome? Silver-Chrome? Black-Paint? Crackle-Finish? Hermes-Edition? LHSA? Lenny Kravitz.....

P.S. I'd probably be prepared to settle for 5% of the profits if this suggestion takes-off.....

Philip.

[lct]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

Lens-hoods are a subject within themselves. So many things which can be discussed!

Personally having grown up (teenage years) with both screw-in and clip-on hoods for my Nikkor lenses I never had any issues with the screw-in types but very frequently had problems with the clip-on ones bouncing off so perhaps my preference for screw-in hoods stems from here?

I love Leica's clip-on and reversible hoods such as those for the tiny 21mm f4; the 35mm / 50mm and the 90mm / 135mm lenses because they stay put! Conversely the clip-on plastic thing for the 28mm Elmarit ASPH v1 is both Brilliant and Bloody Awful at the same time! It's brilliant because it is absolutely tiny and even although it isn't vented / pierced there is no v/f cut off whatsoever. Also because it is made in 2/3 square format it offers near-maximum performance. Unfortunately it is also Bloody Awful because the clip design is so poor that it clips-off FAR too easily. The v2 of the same lens sorted the latter but the downside was that the hood was HUGE.

So Holes! First hood I ever bought for a Leica (still in my teens) was a 'barn-door' thing for my dad's old 50mm f2 Summmitar. OK; it was an akward thing when box-folded shut but - for those of you unfamiliar with the type - it opened-up in near-perfect shape and was rear-vented all along the top-rear of the hood so as not to impede any of the v/f or r/f windows.

Perhaps it's time for Leica to consider bringing back Barn-Door Vented Hoods?

Just think of the marketing possibilities! Black-Chrome? Silver-Chrome? Black-Paint? Crackle-Finish? Hermes-Edition? LHSA? Lenny Kravitz.....

P.S. I'd probably be prepared to settle for 5% of the profits if this suggestion takes-off.....

Philip.

You're referring to the SOOFM hood i guess. Funny to imagine the 50/2 apo with this thing. A question to ask Mr Karbe perhaps .

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!

 

[darylgo]

Bayonet and clip on hoods are fine for shooting but pull the lens out of a case or hold it by the hood and the lens could end up on the ground while that nice hood is secure in hand.  Leica has designed beautiful screw on hoods with stops for correct alignment, I know when I grab that hood my lens won't separate.  Nikon, many years ago made clip on hoods and abandoned that quickly.   

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

11 hours ago, pippy said:

Lens-hoods are a subject within themselves

Indeed they are. Modern lenses do still benefit from good, efficient hoods, but on earlier lenses they can make a huge difference. I find that uncoated lenses become quite usable if a carefully produced hood can be made to fit them. Modern, coated lenses see less of an improvement but still, in some situations, they can be essential to prevent unwanted flare, obvious or veiling. FWIW I always use a hood and find the most efficent are those with a rectangular front and which fit solidly in place. They are not always the most aesthetically pleasing though and their fitment can be awkward.