Thread on Metal Lens Hood for Nikon 200-500

[quinte]

http://amzn.to/1T7QpTv

 

[Braineack]

why are you posting this drivel here?

 

[Derrel]

A tiny, inadequate lens hood, made of metal, and guaranteed to increase the chances of seriously f*****g up the lens in the advent of any kind of mishap...tripod dropped? Monopod dropped? Camera and lens dropped? A solid, unyielding, non-flexible, threaded on metal extension of the lens barrel? A cheap aftermarket lens hood that can help damage the lens, or even worse, rip the lens mount off by NOT absorbing kinetic energy? A cheap, aftermarket "metal" lens hood, so that one can channel every single impact, every single blow, every single dropping of the camera directly into the lens, or even worse, through the lens as a lever, and all the way back to the lens mount?

Drop a long, heavy, large lens onto the ground, or have it tumble or topple...and the FACTORY-designed, FACTORY-engineered, NIKON-approved polycarbonate lens shade will act as a shock absorber and bumper...and will slow the lens down gracefully, and maybe pop the hood off at the bayonet-on fittings.

Want to replace the lens? Want to have the mount repaired? Then buy this metal hood. Want to do $1,000 to $2,500 damage? Then by all means, rush out and buy a metal, screw-in hood.

Putting a cheapie made in CHina e-Bay metal cheapie on a big, long, heavy tele-zoom lens. Not a smart idea.

The idea that a metal, threaded on lens hood is "better" than a polycarbonate, impact-absorbing, protective, adequately-long hood specifically designed for a fairly expensive, lengthy, potentially leverage-inducing, five pound lens? Dumb. Very,very,very dumb, and utterly ignorant of WHY car bumpers, home trash cans, and so many things are now made of plastics and polycarbonate materials, rather than metal.

 

[Solarflare]

I have a metal hood for my all metal lens. Which isnt exactly immune to flare, so I have it on 100% of the time.

For all the other lenses, I wouldnt see the point. I rather have the hood destroyed than the lens.

 

[tirediron]

A tiny, inadequate lens hood, made of metal, and guaranteed to increase the chances of seriously f*****g up the lens in the advent of any kind of mishap...tripod dropped? Monopod dropped? Camera and lens dropped? A solid, unyielding, non-flexible, threaded on metal extension of the lens barrel? A cheap aftermarket lens hood that can help damage the lens, or even worse, rip the lens mount off by NOT absorbing kinetic energy? A cheap, aftermarket "metal" lens hood, so that one can channel every single impact, every single blow, every single dropping of the camera directly into the lens, or even worse, through the lens as a lever, and all the way back to the lens mount?

Drop a long, heavy, large lens onto the ground, or have it tumble or topple...and the FACTORY-designed, FACTORY-engineered, NIKON-approved polycarbonate lens shade will act as a shock absorber and bumper...and will slow the lens down gracefully, and maybe pop the hood off at the bayonet-on fittings.

Want to replace the lens? Want to have the mount repaired? Then buy this metal hood. Want to do $1,000 to $2,500 damage? Then by all means, rush out and buy a metal, screw-in hood.

Putting a cheapie made in CHina e-Bay metal cheapie on a big, long, heavy tele-zoom lens. Not a smart idea.

The idea that a metal, threaded on lens hood is "better" than a polycarbonate, impact-absorbing, protective, adequately-long hood specifically designed for a fairly expensive, lengthy, potentially leverage-inducing, five pound lens? Dumb. Very,very,very dumb, and utterly ignorant of WHY car bumpers, home trash cans, and so many things are now made of plastics and polycarbonate materials, rather than metal.

First-hand experience: I was walking along a beach and my 70-200 parted ways with my tripod. It landed hood down on some really nasty sharp rocks. The hood was cracked and and unusable, but the lens was absolutely undamaged. I have absolutely no problem sacrificing a $45 lens hood to save a $2000 lens (but that might be just me). The story would have been very, very different had that been a threaded-on metal hood, I'm sure.

 

[Braineack]

I'd rather damage a $2000 lens, then disgracefully use modern plastics.

BUILD QUALITY. end all.

 

[Derrel]

First-hand experience: I was walking along a beach and my 70-200 parted ways with my tripod. It landed hood down on some really nasty sharp rocks. The hood was cracked and and unusable, but the lens was absolutely undamaged. I have absolutely no problem sacrificing a $45 lens hood to save a $2000 lens (but that might be just me). The story would have been very, very different had that been a threaded-on metal hood, I'm sure.

Diz-ACTLY! That type of incident with that kind of net positive outcome is precisely why limited flexion, impact-absorbing, non-metal lens hoods have become the norm for larger, heavier, more-valuable lenses.

 

[Braineack]

When I was in the force they tried to supply me with lightweight and effective carbon fiber armor.

I refused, and supplied my own protection:

 

[table1349]

I prefer the lightweight OEM armor.