I like food. I like hammers. I like bunnies.

Hockey Puck

with 2 comments

This article is part of the small but growing Index of Pancake Lenses!

Specifications for the Hockey Puck
"Pancake Impostor"
Years Produced 1820 - Still in production
Street Price US - $0.03 (In 1820)
• As of April 1, 1820
Lens Type Special Effect
Available Mounts • Not Applicable
Optical Construction Opaque black rubber
• Solid, non-transparent type lens
Weather Sealing Yes
Aperture Blades 0
Focus Type Fixed focus or non-focusing
Image Stabilization No
Min. Focus Distance • 0.00m
• (0.00 inches)
Dimensions • 76.0 x 25.0mm
• (2.99 x 0.98 inches)
Weight • 170g
• (6.00 ounces)
Filter Size 72mm
Hood No hood - Use a tuque instead

I’m not quite sure what to say about the aesthetics of this lens when mounted on a camera body. It looks intimidating, that’s for sure. But perhaps by design, it also looks a bit confusing. More than once, I’ve had people say to me “your lens cap is still on, mate” when I use this lens in public.

This lens also has a bit of steep learning curve. The metering seems to be off when I use this lens, and it seems to be limited to one exposure setting. The lens flat out underexposes. I mean, it really, really underexposes. Every single shot seems to be quite a bit off and darker than it should be.

Some Reference Links to Chew On

Written by Tijger Tsou

March 31st, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Posted in

2 Responses to 'Hockey Puck'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Hockey Puck'.

  1. You mention that “every single shot seems to be quite a bit off” with this lens. I think it’s an equipment issue. I have no problems with this lens–most of my shots are right on. During my shooting around with this lens, I’ve found that it works best with Easton Steaths and Synergies or CCM Vectors. But I’ve also gotten good results with my old Sher-Woods.


    15 Apr 09 at 10:49 am

  2. You must be one of the lucky ones- because I’ve had to send my CCMs back for recalibration all the time. I’ve realized that not only are my lenses underexposing, but they are back-focusing too. I can tell because i tape $20 bills to the wall and set my camera on a tripod to test. I don’t think those Canadians known a darn thing about quality control. Grumble.

    Tijger Tsou

    15 Apr 09 at 11:24 am

Leave a Reply