Concept: 4 out of 5 Execution: 4 out of 5 Yeah, but: Now I want to meet a vexillologist.
The Long Version:99% Invisible is a tiny radio program about culture and design that's also a podcast. New episodes are mostly weekly, and past episodes have covered maps, city flags, sound design, concrete graffiti, cheque cashing stores, the considerations of authority and democracy in public space, and the possibilities of sending someone on a one-way mission to Mars. Pretty amazing stuff. It's rare for me to listen to an episode without scribbling a bunch of notes on ideas and websites to investigate.
Hosted by Roman Mars, the stock episodes run about four and a half minutes, although there are some extended podcast-only shows that break double digits. It's tightly focused and well edited, and strikes a great balance between providing enough depth without bogging down into the esoteric. Roman Mars serves as an eloquent narrator and provides bridges between interview clips from interesting people.
One of the best things about 99% Invisible is its production quality. Sound really matters, and there's none of the nonsense that mars so many amateur programs. Forget about those synthetic musical riffs accompanying long self-indulgent intros, and instead enjoy high production quality with some fascinating backing music. This is professional all the way, and it's worth listening to just for the sound of it all.
For further reading, there's also an article to check out on transom.org, which is a site worthy of exploration for anyone who's interested in capturing or sharing sound.
Concept: 2 out of 5 Execution: 2 out of 5 Yeah, but: It has a great name.
The Long Version: Neoprene is an amazing thing. It seems like it's always called "wetsuit material", as if that's something that most people own, while it's actually ubiquitous in small electronics cases, laptop sleeves, and anything else that needs a little bit of stretch and a modest amount of cushioning. The Hood Hat from Op/Tech is a perfect use for it.
I discovered the Hood Hat through the review of it on Roger (Hicks) and Frances (Schultz) excellent Photo School website. It's worth a thorough and extensive visit, and I have to admit that there's not much that I can add to the Hood Hat that they haven't already said. Essentially: the neoprene provides good protection, a secure fit, and they're easy to put away when the lens is being used. I drop my lens caps back in the camera bag when they're not being used, and hood hats don't rattle when the bag is jostled and I don't worry about dropping the lens on top of it when I have to switch in a hurry.
I have the "micro" size hat to fit over the hoods on two of my little Zeiss M-mount lenses. Rangefinder lenses in general are perfect candidates for Hood Hats, since they extend far enough down the barrel of these diminutive lenses that it obstructs the controls on the lens barrel, making it immediately obvious when they're still attached. No more black photos because the lens cap was left on. Zeiss ZM lenses are even better candidates for Hood Hats because their original lens caps are atrocious. Not the worst I've ever seen – that honour goes to the new Tokina 16-28/2.8 – but really bad just the same.
The other lens that gets a Hood Hat is coincidentally also a Zeiss, as the lenses for Hasselblad take custom sizes. The "Small" size turns out to be a good fit for the 150mm f/4 T* CF lens, although the hat does extend far enough back to bump the depth of field preview lever. Not a big deal at all, and a simple fix to an otherwise irritating lack of standardization.
To be honest, if a lens has a reasonably deep hood then I rarely bother with a lens cap. Having a hat that goes on over the hood doesn't really seem to answer a burning need for most photographers, and I'm not about to add them to any of the other lenses that I have in my collection. But it's a solid product that does serve a small niche (rhymes with quiche) and I'd certainly miss them if they were gone. It's not every day that someone takes the time to improve on something as basic as a lens cap, even if there isn't much need for it.
Concept: 1 out of 5 Execution: 0 out of 5 Yeah, but: It has to be seen to be believed.
The Long Version: The Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 PRO FX clearly isn't a pretentious lens. With a list price around $1100 Canadian, it's Tokina's 'full-frame' version of their wildly popular 11-16/2.8, and is a welcome addition to the wide-angle options for the 24x36 set. I'm glad to see it and I wish it well; I've never really used the lens, but I've heard some nice things about it. This review is simply of its lens cap.
Made of a soft and flexible plastic, the Tokina 16-28's unbranded cap has shallow ridges that provide only a feeble grip on the hood some of the time. Other times the round hood mates with the round cap in a way that gives it no grip at all. None. I've done this trick with the caps on each of the three lenses that I've tested, including both Canon and Nikon mounts. Words can't convey the reality of it, so I've done an eighteen second MOS video.
Hands down, no question, without a doubt: this is the worst lens cap I've ever seen. You could use the metal cap from the Olympus 7-14 to prop up an artillery shell; the plastic caps from the Panasonic 7-14 and Nikon 14-24 aren't as impressive but they are still incredibly solid. Like the cap for the Tokina 16-28, all of these work to protect the bulging front element by attaching with a pressure-fit around the outside of the built-in petal hood. This design failure isn't the result of Tokina trying a daring new idea: even the press-on plastic tail cap from a Nikon 50/1.8D puts this front cap to shame.
The problems still don't stop when the Tokina cap is attached firmly enough that its own weight won't dislodge it. It can be knocked off by even a slight bump or nudge; I'd be mildly concerned about losing it if it wasn't guaranteed to fall off while the lens is still in the camera bag. The cap also isn't deep enough to completely cover the gaps in the petal-shaped lens hood, so it doesn't even protect against dust. This might also be a good time to point out that the lens can't take filters, and the width of its vision requires a shallow hood. The only real option to protect this lens, after spending a thousand dollars on it, is to spring a little extra for a neoprene Hood Hat. Nice.
There are certain things that I would like to take for granted, and the ability of a company with as much experience as Tokina – a division of Hoya, and a stablemate of Pentax – to design a lens cap that works properly shouldn't be too much to ask. Sure, Canon hasn't yet discovered the centre-pinch design, but this stuff shouldn't be pushing the state of the art. It boggles my mind that something this flawed made its way into the box of a shipping product, let alone a lens as expensive as this one. It can't be an accident that Tokina doesn't put their name on it.
updated: rumour has it that there is an improved mkII lens cap out there, and it can be ordered through an authorized dealer as a replacement for the one that I've reviewed here. It may even already be installed on some of the more recently made lenses. I would like to thank Tokina for giving people one more example of how important it is to buy from a real local camera store, and hope to have a further update once I've been able to try out the new design. updated once more: I've now seen the new design in person – both of them, in fact. One is a branded press-on cap that's deeper and made of rigid plastic, while the other is an elaborate design that clips into place and offers excellent protection. Lens caps can indeed be swapped out, but the store has to pay for the new caps up-front and is only reimbursed when the old models are sent back to them, and the cost isn't insignificant. Replacing the lousy design that I've reviewed here may not be all that easy.
Concept: How good the underlying idea is. Originality counts.
Execution: How well the idea has been realized. Bad ideas can be done perfectly, and vice-versa.
Unless explicitly and prominently noted, any products or services discussed here have been bought with our own money from normal retail channels, and the opinions offered are not sponsored, endorsed, paid for, or compensated in any way.
However, there's no such thing as a truly unbiased opinion. All thoughts here are simply those of the people who write them, and should be given the appropriate consideration and viewed in the context of the individuals' experience.
Posts
