Sadly not. "Ye cannae fight the laws of physics" as a Scotsman once/will said. It is by no means horrendous, but flare is there, under specific circumstances.
So, there are times when a hood would be handy, particularly in the raking Autumn sunshine. I've been experimenting with two screw-in E-39 alternatives, both of which do the job, and both of which I happened to have already in my photographic man-drawer.
The first is a Leica 12550 hood designed for the 50mm Elmar-M. By far my favourite lens on Leica M bodies, the tiny Elmar - which is collapsible - does actually happen to be superlatively good at flare resistance, so this hood tends to be kicking around doing nothing. Option 2 is a generic, slotted hood bought on eBay for my now long-gone X-10 so also underemployed at the moment.
In use I'd say that both cut flare, the Leica slightly more than the slotted. They are both the same depth, and neither produces any noticeable vignetting, which is good considering that the Leica hood in particular is designed for a 50mm lens not a 40-equivalent.
Aesthetically the Leica hood is a very good match, albeit it looks a little odd because it is so far inboard of the edge of the lens. The milling looks almost identical, however, as if the hood and lens were designed together. The slotted hood, which is larger in overall diameter, doesn't look quite so odd in that respect, but the slots are rendered totally useless and it adds considerably to the overall volume of the lens. Both can be left in place, with a hood (push-on for the Leica, clip-on for the slotted) on the end, but they add significant depth to the body and lens combination - fine if you are throwing them in a bag, not so great in a belt pouch.
There's no outright winner here yet, and I am still swopping and experimenting, but I thought you might like a look, and to read my musings thus far.
0 comments