the time i had this lens i made some tests against the olympus 35-70 3,6
the most significant difference was that the zeiss was almost flare resistant.
so maybe u dont need a hood.
maybe thats why there is no.
In my experience the 35-70/3.4 is indeed resistant to flare, but it loses a significant amount of contrast when used without a hood. Only noticeable when doing a direct comparison because it is still contrasty even without a hood, but the difference can hardly be ignored. In fact, I consider that loss of contrast without shielding the front element from bright light sources (and I'm not talking direct sunlight here, an overcast sky is enough!) the major optical drawback of this lens.
I did some comparison shots a while back, will see if I can find them.
These are somewhat more drastic than the images I was looking for, but I think you get the idea. There's diffused sunlight coming from a bit above the frame. The first image is with a hood and a contraption generously shielding the front element from above, the second frame is without any kind of shielding. This is at 35mm on a crop body, I have also shot comparisons at 70mm with just an overcast sky as the light source, and the loss of contrast is significant in direct comparisons without jumping out at you if you don't have an image with proper light shielding to compare to. And no, my lens isn't defective or full of dust etc..
Per some suggestions here, I obtained a 3 position Hoya hood.
It is not THE correct hood but functionally is very good as can be optimized for FL.
I have forgotton to bring it and have resorted to a hat or map hood that seemed to do a good job as well. One lens that is very sensitive to loss of contrast w/o hood is the Viv s1 90mm at lower mags. Not sure why, but always use a hood with it to good effect.
Thanks Philip. I am going to order one of these. I have one of the rubber 3 position hoods, and I don't really like it - too big folded up and too floppy when I carry the camera on my RS strap. This looks nicer to use, and I'll use my hat if I need more shade!
The Contax hoods are on the expensive side, but are not the most practical. But they look good... I did use both an eBay cheapie rubber hood and cheapie metal one previously. Both worked fine.
"..but the Zeiss 35-70/3.4 is one of very few lenses that I normally use without a hood." You know, me too, but always a wide brimmed hat.
The Mamiya hood is large and therefore very protective of bumps, I imagine the Contax hood is the same, another reason to use some type of hood.
Those images look compelling, dcjs, it just destroyed the 2nd image - especially bad given it was a diffuse overcast...the zoom has a very large and prominent front element, so it stands to reason.
I did use both an eBay cheapie rubber hood and cheapie metal one previously. Both worked fine.