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: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lens hood for protection idea does make me wonder:

Do they make lens hoods/filters that *are* just for drop protection? Like a screw-on bumper?

Answering my own question ... yes, they do.
One is made by easyCover.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If the lens shade were so important, ALL fisheye and ultra wide-angle lenses would be useless. Yes, because it is virtually impossible to design a lens shade really effective for those types of lenses. The lens hoods that those lenses possibly have are basically to protect the front element from accidental bumps against hard surfaces, not to eliminate haze and gosthing.

The example below shows what can happen when you use a fisheye to photograph a model against the bright tropical sun of the late afternoon. The sun was still so strong that it would blind anyone using a DSLR camera with OFV (Thanks God they invented the EVF!).


Image out of camera:



Look now at the picture after defishing and some PP work. Obviously, haze and gosthing are clearly visible, but who cares? No lens hood in the world would eliminate such effects. The most important is that the end result is interesting IMHO.

Picture after defishing and PP:


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hood necessity is proportional to desired effect for any given situation.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
No lens hood in the world would eliminate such effects


So what does that have to do with a discussion about lens hoods then? Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
So what does that have to do with a discussion about lens hoods then? Smile


Simple. If you analyze the importance of the lens hood, as the Modern Photography article made it clear, there are only three possibilities to consider:
1) Haze/gosthing does not occur with or without lens hood.
2) Haze/goshting occurs but the lens hood is of no benefit.
3) Some haze/goshting occurs and the lens hood brings some benefit.

For a good lens, the first two cases cover maybe 99% of practical situations. Obviously, the example I presented falls in Case 2.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
the first two cases cover maybe 99% of practical situations


a) So you'd say that 1 in 100 shots benefit from using lens hood?
b) Or 1 in 100 shots using the direct sun or only one light source benefit?

If b), does a lens hood help more than 1 in 100 shots where there are multiple light sources (reflections, bright specular highlights, particular angles of incidence with particular lenses, flare, coma and ghosting at night from lights just outside the frame, etc) involved? Or still just 1 in 100?

Given that we're talking percentages, how many percent of damage from drops would you think would be mitigated by having a lens hood on?


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
a) So you'd say that 1 in 100 shots benefit from using lens hood?


For good lenses, yes. I said GOOD lenses, man!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
For good lenses, yes. I said GOOD lenses, man!


So given that good often equals expensive, wouldn't the extra physical protection still make lens hoods inherently useful?


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Quote:
a) So you'd say that 1 in 100 shots benefit from using lens hood?


For good lenses, yes. I said GOOD lenses, man!


Totally ridiculous, sorry.

The Sun effects a good portion of the compass on any given day, considerably more than 1%. Nearly every high end prime modern prime either comes with a shade, or there is a special one made for it. Why?

Because they are very useful. Smile


A7.mod w/ZM18 by unoh7, (arguably the best 18mm lens ever made)

I was silly enough to believe a thread where many said such a shade was not necessary with this lens. I learned immediately it was. I should have kept the shots that were ruined. LOL

Now, I think everybody can make up their own mind if they care. I totally understand those who don't want to be bothered. But to say it makes no difference is contrary to my experience and many others.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
1. I personally don't place a lot of weight on a magazine article (Modern Photography) as gospel.

2. Selecting fisheyes and UWA lenses which by design, have very large angles of view, is self-gratifying and not all inclusive as a case for the uselessness of hoods.

3. And shooting into direct sunlight and pointing out the fact a hood can't eliminate haze/flare, is silly. Washing your hands will help reduce your chance of catching bacteria and viruses, but it's not claimed as a cure for illnesses.

4. As pointed out above, a long focal length telephoto benefits from hoods. Instead of fisheyes, let's toss in a long mirror lens. Try shooting w/o a hood and see how much contrast it will yield. A hood reduces indirect, scattered light, especially close source. That light can be undesirable to the exposure and can alter the metering in certain situations. The coatings are not there to eliminate them, but to pass as much light through as possible. That's the purpose of multi-coatings.
The haze and flare is the result of reflectivity between elements.

5. Experience. I use hoods based on personal shooting style and type of photographic genre. The advice passed down was to shoot with hoods, and the improvement I see shooting with and without them, has proven it to be sound advice. Old lenses, newer lenses, modern lenses.

6. Pros still use them, companies still ship them. To claim its based on superstition and false notions and companies only offer them because it's expected, is nonsense. I wouldn't be carrying extra gear if it weren't necessary, and companies would gladly not include them and save the cost of manufacturing them.

7. They do add protection, also have you shot in the rain or near splashing liquids? A wet front element or filter means you are losing shots.

You can of course continue to shoot w/o hoods, I'm not trying to convert you to hoodom. Smile
But you are trying to preach those who are, are wasting their effort on them. There is enough of a strong position for them as your position against them.
In the end, we're all just out shooting. And if we get our shot, that's what matters.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A good lens does not have to be expensive. It must have a good coating and, most important, have meticulously clean optics surfaces. Forget all "collectible" lenses from before the war, and lenses from decades ago with hazy optical surfaces covered by lubricant films. I would never buy, for example, an expensive old Leica lens if I do not know how to maintain it myself.



Quote:
Nearly every high end prime modern prime either comes with a shade, or there is a special one made for it. Why?


Maybe you should become better informed, man!

Where are the lens shades that come with these extremely expensive Leica prime lenses?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029162-REG/leica_lei_sumc_set_cs_summicron_t2_0_lens_set.html



Last edited by Gerald on Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:31 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald, do you really enjoy this? I don't even think you believe what you are saying, you are just being a devil's advocate to be a pain.

Grow up.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:
Gerald, do you really enjoy this? I don't even think you believe what you are saying, you are just being a devil's advocate to be a pain.

Grow up.


With all due respect, it seems that your technical arguments have been exhausted and now you can only make comments about people. I suggest that you research the matter further in order to better contribute to the discussion.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:


A7.mod w/ZM18 by unoh7, (arguably the best 18mm lens ever made)


That photo is weird lol, optical illusion! I see a lens stuck in the hood @_@


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
With all due respect, it seems that your technical arguments have been exhausted


Given that your only "technical argument" was a poorly done experiment from a magazine 30 years ago, and the the rest has been purely "Nu-ah" or ridiculous examples that have no bearing or technical merit ... and ignoring the multiple real life and anecdotal examples that show you are completely and utterly wrong in multiple circumstances ... then the conclusion I came to is the only one with "technical" merit.

You are purposely being contrary for your own enjoyment.

Each to their own, I guess.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
...Maybe you should become better informed, man!

Where are the lens shades that come with these extremely expensive Leica prime lenses?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029162-REG/leica_lei_sumc_set_cs_summicron_t2_0_lens_set.html



But you know that for those cine lenses bellow hoods / matte boxes are used?
There are many manufacturers of matte boxes, Arri, Cinevate, Chrosziel, Redrockmicro to name a few. Matte boxes sometimes cost up to USD 5000:
http://www.bandpro.com/products/lenses-lens-accessories/matte-boxes-sunshades/chrosziel-6-6x6-6-mattebox.html


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:
Hmm. Which one was closer to reality?

Really?... Obviously, I used a hood for the second photo!

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For many years I've been convinced that lens hoods have probably more value when it's raining than when the sun shines, at least where I live. And who would have thought that such a simple and inherently innocuous gadget could excite so much impassioned debate? I eagerly await Round 2 where we start to argue about the relative merits of metal, plastic or rubber as the most efficient material to use in their construction, and - of course - a vigorous (but, as always, amiable) dicsussion about whether Leitz or Zeiss make the best sort Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
For many years I've been convinced that lens hoods have probably more value when it's raining than when the sun shines, at least where I live. And who would have thought that such a simple and inherently innocuous gadget could excite so much impassioned debate? I eagerly await Round 2 where we start to argue about the relative merits of metal, plastic or rubber as the most efficient material to use in their construction, and - of course - a vigorous (but, as always, amiable) dicsussion about whether Leitz or Zeiss make the best sort Wink


Stephen, are you already starting round 2? Smile

IMHO the crux of the story is the position of the sun and the "quality" of the lens used, as it always was for outdoor photography either with or without hood. From my experience there are certainly situations where the use of hoods makes sense (other than rain or dirt protection) as is also illustrated in the old article posted by Gerald. For me such circumstances are arguments enough to use shades/hoods as a general principle, even when it wouldn't make any difference for the majority of the pictures . Of course, the change of the shooting angle or the use of your hand to shade the front of the lens may also work and you won't see any difference in the final picture. However, as I don't use any "protecting" filters at all the shade also maintains some protection functionality. My preferred solution is to use cheap rubber shades which are fold-able. They are available in all shapes and most sizes and offer the highest protection capacity. I would never spend very much for an original Leitz (or any other manufacturer's) shade if not provided already together with the lens. Chinese rubber hoods for 1 to 2 bucks will do the trick as well.

Finally, the selection of the best shooting angle (vs. the sun) may have higher impact on picture contrast than any lens hood used. That's an old story anyway (at least for me).

Just my 2 Cents.

Cheers,


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let us remember that sunlight reflects, sometimes very well and into the frame...


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Really?... Obviously, I used a hood for the second photo!


I know, obviously ... but we see glare too, sometimes I can see less than the camera, sometimes the other way around, depending on what kind of light, glare, reflections, etc. It's not necessary only in the photo.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:

But you know that for those cine lenses bellow hoods / matte boxes are used?


I know, but many professional film directors do not use matte boxes, or use them just to hold filters. However the question was another. Someone said above that nearly all high-quality prime lenses COME with hoods. This is not true!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
4. As pointed out above, a long focal length telephoto benefits from hoods. Instead of fisheyes, let's toss in a long mirror lens. Try shooting w/o a hood and see how much contrast it will yield. A hood reduces indirect, scattered light, especially close source.


A good lens with optical mirrors in good shape should not need lens hood. This is the case, for example, the mirror lenses from Nikon and Zeiss. Where is the lens hood for this Zeiss 500mm F4.5 Mirotar?



from: http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_cute_DFR_DDR_lenses/00_pag.htm

The article by Marco Cavina has dozens of interesting photos of the Mirotar, one of a best mirror lenses ever built in the world, but I found no lens hood for Mirotar. Again, where is it?


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Someone said above that nearly all high-quality prime lenses COME with hoods. This is not true!


Quote:
Nearly every high end prime modern prime either comes with a shade, or there is a special one made for it


He's right, you can edge case all you like, but you are just putting forward random examples that prove the rule (you also misquoted, leaving out an important part of what he said to suit your own ridiculous agenda).


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I will consider the Carl Zeiss Jena Spiegelobjektiv 500/4 is comparable the Mirotar http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/lens/german/zeiss/czj_spiegelobjektiv_500mm_f4/ . Maybe we can do a side by side test to see which is better. Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5