Lens Hood VX2100

Reginald Watts · July 28th, 2008, 12:01 PM

My used 2100 came without the great lens hood (as on my wife's new 2100) with the built in lever. I've tried eBay, and emailing Sony in both US and Canada. I was able to buy a mickey-mouse small rectangular on EBAY, but I need the real thing. I can't find a part number either.
Any suggestions? (No, I can't steal hers!)
Reg

Adam Gold · July 28th, 2008, 12:06 PM

http://servicesales.sel.sony.com/eco...mera/Camcorder

Reginald Watts · July 28th, 2008, 04:12 PM

Thanks Adam, I'll give 'em a try.

J. Stephen McDonald · August 7th, 2008, 01:50 AM

The only reason I keep my stock VX2100 lens hood, is in case I ever want to sell the camcorder. I never use this hood. I've made several smaller butterfly (flower) type of hoods for it and the telextenders I use and that big, cumbersome thing has no function that I can see, other than to look impressive. When I pop on an added lens, I can fit the small hoods in a pocket, but the big one won't fit. Can anyone claim improved image quality by using it?

Tom Hardwick · August 7th, 2008, 02:09 AM

The hood supplied with the original VX2000 was in fact more efficient than the shuttered hood fitted to the VX2k1 replacement. Why? Because the shuttered hood lost the shadow mask that the original hood had and introduced that silly reflective shutter panel that when open bounced the light right onto that VAP front element.

If you don't mind not having the barn doors shutter Reginald, buying the VX2k hood is a better bet. It's probably cheaper, but more to the point it's a far better hood what with the 4:3 aperture mask keeping the interior of the hood in shadow.

JSM - I'm a believer in petal hoods, but they can't equal the efficiency of a shadowed, aspect-ratio hood. Of course we must all remember that (unless we use a telescoping Hoya hood and remember to pull and push at it as we zoom) all hoods we fit are only efficient at the very widest end of the zoom.

As soon as we zoom even a bit towards tele the hood loses its efficiency, until at the tele end it's hardly worth bothering with (though of course I'd never be without it).

And while I'm here, don't use a 'protective' UV filter - it reduces the hood's efficiency still further.

tom.

Reginald Watts · August 7th, 2008, 05:20 AM

That is very interesting, Tom. I think I'll drop the search for the lens hood, which I finally located at $82.95 from Sony US, but NOT available in Canada. Also, the UV filter is worth knowing too.
Thanks for this guys, we can probably call this issue "closed."
Reg

July 28th, 2008, 12:01 PM	#1
Reginald Watts New Boot Join Date: May 2007 Location: Gananoque, Ontario, Canada Posts: 5	Lens Hood VX2100 - replacement My used 2100 came without the great lens hood (as on my wife's new 2100) with the built in lever. I've tried eBay, and emailing Sony in both US and Canada. I was able to buy a mickey-mouse small rectangular on EBAY, but I need the real thing. I can't find a part number either. Any suggestions? (No, I can't steal hers!) Reg Last edited by Reginald Watts; July 28th, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason: forgot word

August 7th, 2008, 01:50 AM	#4
J. Stephen McDonald Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 909	The only reason I keep my stock VX2100 lens hood, is in case I ever want to sell the camcorder. I never use this hood. I've made several smaller butterfly (flower) type of hoods for it and the telextenders I use and that big, cumbersome thing has no function that I can see, other than to look impressive. When I pop on an added lens, I can fit the small hoods in a pocket, but the big one won't fit. Can anyone claim improved image quality by using it? __________________ Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

July 28th, 2008, 12:06 PM	#2
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	http://servicesales.sel.sony.com/eco...mera/Camcorder

July 28th, 2008, 04:12 PM	#3
Reginald Watts New Boot Join Date: May 2007 Location: Gananoque, Ontario, Canada Posts: 5	Thanks Adam, I'll give 'em a try.

August 7th, 2008, 02:09 AM	#5
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The hood supplied with the original VX2000 was in fact more efficient than the shuttered hood fitted to the VX2k1 replacement. Why? Because the shuttered hood lost the shadow mask that the original hood had and introduced that silly reflective shutter panel that when open bounced the light right onto that VAP front element. If you don't mind not having the barn doors shutter Reginald, buying the VX2k hood is a better bet. It's probably cheaper, but more to the point it's a far better hood what with the 4:3 aperture mask keeping the interior of the hood in shadow. JSM - I'm a believer in petal hoods, but they can't equal the efficiency of a shadowed, aspect-ratio hood. Of course we must all remember that (unless we use a telescoping Hoya hood and remember to pull and push at it as we zoom) all hoods we fit are only efficient at the very widest end of the zoom. As soon as we zoom even a bit towards tele the hood loses its efficiency, until at the tele end it's hardly worth bothering with (though of course I'd never be without it). And while I'm here, don't use a 'protective' UV filter - it reduces the hood's efficiency still further. tom.

August 7th, 2008, 05:20 AM	#6
Reginald Watts New Boot Join Date: May 2007 Location: Gananoque, Ontario, Canada Posts: 5	That is very interesting, Tom. I think I'll drop the search for the lens hood, which I finally located at $82.95 from Sony US, but NOT available in Canada. Also, the UV filter is worth knowing too. Thanks for this guys, we can probably call this issue "closed." Reg