Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Are Lens Shades Really Necessary?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
I am a Californian.
We have a collection of umbrellas.

Dazey wrote:
..and I am a Londoner that doesn't own a single umbrella, I think they are useless things, always get caught by the wind.

Oops ... it seems I swapped the answers a Londoner and a Californian would give about the usefulness of an umbrella! Mr. Green Mr. Green Mr. Green


PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cause I have many lenses and use some of them very seldom I don´t have hoods on every lens.
But I love hoods to prevent stray light and as protection for the lens.

For my Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2, Porst 135/1.8 and Helios 40 85mm/1.5 I have made special hoods that are narrower / longer than normal avialable. Two of them with kind of tulip form.
With the Trioplan/Diaplan/Pentacon AV I use my hand to prevent stray light - or I use the flares I get without shading for the image composition.

Cause I like to work with the sun somewhere in front of me, I know from practice how essential a hood could be for good image quality. As optics engineer I know also from theory that stray light prevention is essential.
The less unneeded light enters the optical system the better. Inside the lens (and camera) stray light reduction with baffels and good black surfaces is needed too.


PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes.
You can use one or not, makes no difference to me.


PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
I am a Californian.
We have a collection of umbrellas.

Dazey wrote:
..and I am a Londoner that doesn't own a single umbrella, I think they are useless things, always get caught by the wind.

Oops ... it seems I swapped the answers a Londoner and a Californian would give about the usefulness of an umbrella! Mr. Green Mr. Green Mr. Green


Generally speaking, generalizations are always incorrect.


PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing

Along with that comment, I like that a link to the article with some leg work down in experimenting with angles, and coming to a conclusion for all to see, only for us here to carry on with, "Hoods are useless, or I always use hoods as hoods always help" Laughing

it would appear the answer is the middle ground but be buggered if anyone is brave enough to tread there? Will it have to be me.... ..




Really?




Well ok..



*clears throat*



"I think hoods are sometimes useful and sometimes sh1t."





Laughing There! now lets all rejoice for the truth hath been spoken

Last edited by tromboads on Fri May 09, 2014 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
There! now lets all rejoice for the truth hath been spoken


Amen!


PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
I use my left hand a lot to cover up for the light. Works nice for me Wink
From the looks of it, seems like the lens in your avatar could use a hood now and then, but to find one that doesn't vignette, that would be the trick...


That lens already has a built-in hood.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use lens hoods on all my modern lenses, and I recognize how useful they are, but my doubt was only about the Meyer Optik Trioplan 2.9/50 because the front element of the lens it's retracted in a kind of tunnel.
I think I will get a hood for it anyway.

Thank's for sharing the articles. Very interesting.

Last edited by jrsilva on Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:34 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I suppose it is a question of practicality. With teles where the lens shade is built in (135mm 2.8 5/5, 200 mm 2.8 Rokkor), I will use it if needed as I just need to pull it. On 500 m f/8 it remains screwed On the 20mm 2.8, I leave it screwed as it is not that big (however, not sure it is efficient as it is circular). On all other lenses (24 2.8, 28 2, 35 1.8, 85 2, 100mm macro 4), no shade as they would be too big. On 50mm 1.4 I leave it not sure why
Always possible to use hand...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, to make your lens look BETTER Very Happy This lens wouldn't be the same without the hood Smile

I actually used this hood once as a protection for the lens, and I did drop the lens on concrete floor. The hood got bent, which makes me sad because i love the hood so much. However, it saved the lens front glass.
#1


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
"Are socks necessary?"

Laugh 1


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
"Are socks necessary?"

Laugh 1


depends.. Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Another point to use hoods is not only sun from the sides
Many lenses, especially tele lenses, have coverage far above APS-C or FF.
Some lenses have image cicles even above 10cm. The rest of the light is scattered inside the focusing mechanism, lens tubes, camera housing etc. and is finally spread diffuse on the sensor which slightly lowers color saturation, (micro-)contrast,..., a good hoods cuts of most of the image cicly which dereases that issue.
Than can help especially with for medium format designed (also enlarger-) lenses,

I'm almost always using hoods with several of my currect lenses if I have proper ones.
But not only to enhance IQ, with some also to protect front elements (like expensive Sonnar 55/1.8 )


Also some lenses have very salient front elements, other fron elemnts are deep inside the lens and well protected from sun and damage.

I would say it depends a lot on the lens if a hood is helpful or even "necessary" or not.

For some lenses I would highly recommend them, for others they are close to useless.

+1
I experiences this when using 35mm lenses with a MFT body. The improvement was spectacular. A Super Tak 551.8 with a tele hood performs really better on such cameras.
Now I have a similar experience with some 35mm lenses used with a Sony A7 through adapters.
With some of those lenses , it makes a difference. The adapters do not help regarding internal reflections though.

In addition , I use no UV filter and with a hood I feel safer and more relaxed . So , in my bag, my lenses are ready with their hood mounted .


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tromboads wrote:
Laughing

Along with that comment, I like that a link to the article with some leg work down in experimenting with angles, and coming to a conclusion for all to see, only for us here to carry on with, "Hoods are useless, or I always use hoods as hoods always help" Laughing


+1 Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:40 am    Post subject: Re: Are Lens Shades Really Necessary? Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:

Third, most modern lenses come with a cheap $1 plastic lens shade because the lens manufacturer saved in the lens construction and did not provide a suitable recess of the front lens.


Thanks for the useful article. Maybe due to scientific education, if someone shows me proofs, I could change my mind. In fact I'm not a great user of lens hood, but because I am lazy and every time I feel guilty due to the usual hood mantra. However in the images provided, there are 3 samples in which I prefer the shaded version. Like any prevention tool, I guess the cost of using a (proper) hood is justified even by low probability of risk, but no drama if not there.

However, regarding the above sentence, a recess of the front lens is in fact a natural hood: if not useful, no need for recess Smile .
Regarding why modern lenses are not recessed, more than cost I prefer to think that is matter of size. A non recessed front lens makes the lens body slightly shorter. This could be a value (in particular if the hood is only rarely needed).


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice Jupiter grenade lens, I can do without it though. But I need your lovely hood !
One day when I retire I may get into the artistic lens hood business.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Nice Jupiter grenade lens, I can do without it though. But I need your lovely hood !
One day when I retire I may get into the artistic lens hood business.


Are you talking about my hood? It's a Tair 133


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Another point to use hoods is not only sun from the sides
Many lenses, especially tele lenses, have coverage far above APS-C or FF.
Some lenses have image cicles even above 10cm. The rest of the light is scattered inside the focusing mechanism, lens tubes, camera housing etc. and is finally spread diffuse on the sensor which slightly lowers color saturation, (micro-)contrast,..., a good hoods cuts of most of the image cicly which dereases that issue.
Than can help especially with for medium format designed (also enlarger-) lenses,

I'm almost always using hoods with several of my currect lenses if I have proper ones.
But not only to enhance IQ, with some also to protect front elements (like expensive Sonnar 55/1.8 )


Also some lenses have very salient front elements, other fron elemnts are deep inside the lens and well protected from sun and damage.

I would say it depends a lot on the lens if a hood is helpful or even "necessary" or not.

For some lenses I would highly recommend them, for others they are close to useless.


Yes, I fully agree with that! Basically I adjust the lens hood to what I see in the viewfinder and always
use the narrowest/longest hood possible (or make one from cardboard). Even exotic lenses like the Coastal Optics
Apo 60mm (a lens also for UV) which is known to have a serious hotspot can be cured with a suitable lens hood!


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, sorry, the Fair.
Lovely hood, someone in China should copy it.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Damn, can't type anything on this tablet.
The Tair of course.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jupiter-8 2/50 M-39 silver Serial number 6845575





It guess you, if you please, in which photo was used a lens hood Mr. Green

Deficient or single coating need adequate hood in most cases, almost all occasions. I think these pictures say something Smile

Better coating give less dramatic results and may make unnecessary the hood use, but continue to protect the lens.

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
It guess you, if you please, in which photo was used a lens hood


That is a huge difference.

Hmm. Which one was closer to reality?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I hate hoods and nearly always use them. Every lens I own will flare. Including my modern Zeiss and Leica lenses. While flare can be attractive, more often it ruins shots for me.


DSC06958 by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lens hood on a good lens is like wearing a bulletproof vest to walk on the streets of Tokyo. The chance of being hit by a stray bullet in Tokyo is very low, but if you walk down a street in Rio de Janeiro, I will understand perfectly well why you're wearing a lens hood ... oops, a bullet proof vest. Laugh 1

Note
Binoculars, microscope lenses, animals and birds eyes do not use lens hoods. Have you seen any eagle that does not see well? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Binoculars, microscope lenses, animals and birds eyes do not use lens hoods. Have you seen any eagle that does not see well?


When camera sensors and lenses are made of non-reflective flesh, and have brains that can reinterpret what they are seeing to take account of the flare/glare/reflections and reconstruct a picture around it, then that comparison will be valid.

Some people want the absolute best photo they can get on a Monday no matter what they have to carry, and the smallest kit they can get on a Wednesday. Maybe the Tuesday is overcast and the Friday they are shooting with full sun.

It's not an either/or.
There is no yes or no answer.
There is no right answer.

To suggest one way or the other is correct is a religious, not a factual, answer.

Quote:
Lens hood on a good lens is like wearing a bulletproof vest to walk on the streets of Tokyo. The chance of being hit by a stray bullet in Tokyo is very low

People don't drop things in Tokyo?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5