View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject: Are Lens Shades Really Necessary? |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
This is a copy of the article "Are Lens Shades Really Necessary?" written by Bennett Sherman and Jason Schneider for Modern Photography, issue of October 1979. Bennett Sherman was then the optical expert at Modern Photography, and Jason Schneider was a camera collector with several books published on the subject.
This article is the best study I know of to determine the efficiency of the lens shade (or lens hood, as it is more commonly called today) to eliminate/minimize flaring and ghosting in lenses.
I think the effectiveness of lens shade is overrated today. There are several reasons for this.
First, many people use old lenses with hazy elements. These lenses are highly prone to flaring, and the owners tend to think that the lens shade is critically important.
Second, many people believe the advertising of lens manufacturers who like to exaggerate the value of multicoating. People tend to believe, for example, that lenses with single coating produce flare like hell if a lens shade is not used.
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. The lens shade serves more as a mechanical protection for the front lens but the photographic public tends to interpret the lens shade as "imperative" to get a picture with high contrast and vivid photography.
Fourth, the sites that review lenses generally do a very poor job when it comes to test lens flaring, and end up passing the incorrect information that lens shade is extremely important.
_________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist.
Last edited by Gerald on Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
For the most part I don't use them unless a lens flares badly. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7794 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I generally use a hood, it's a case of it being little inconvenience and often a big improvement. I use the collapsible rubber ones that I can stuff in a pocket, help protect the front of the lens - I spent a lot of time rambling around the woods away from the paths, and they cost very little - a good thing because I lose a lot of them as well.
Surprisingly, the new Sony A600O power zoom 16-50 kit lens has no hood and there isn't one listed in the Sony accessories. There is a 40.5 filter thread so I tried a hood from a Jupiter 12 and that vignettes horribly. I haven't tried it in the sun yet, I just hope it doesn't flare a lot. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CuriousOne
Joined: 31 Dec 2013 Posts: 669 Location: Home
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CuriousOne wrote:
It depends.
Some lens need it, some not. Usually, more expensive lens need shades less times. _________________ I have nothing to compensate with lens |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
The higher the quality of the multicoatings, and the more the angle of the sun is towards your back, the less need for the shade. _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
I use my left hand a lot to cover up for the light. Works nice for me _________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
Nordentro wrote: |
I use my left hand a lot to cover up for the light. Works nice for me |
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... _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Maybe its the kind of lenses I like to use, but my opinion is that going out with a lens without a hood is like taking a stroll in my underwear. A lens is just undressed without a hood. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
I have the sun in frame regularly, so no hood will help me anyways and they just add bulk, a few lenses like my early Super-Tak 28/3.5 has nice flare, so I wouldn't use one anyways, but my Pen F 38/1.8 needs a hood, so it typically gets one. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
norland
Joined: 10 Aug 2013 Posts: 165
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
norland wrote:
I use lens-hoods.
On the Tamron 55BB mirror lens, away from home it has the Tamron hood which comes with it.
An effective 65mm long. But around this property I use another, which is an effective 96mm long.
On the Paragon 500mm f8 non-mirror is one that's 115mm.
(the camera's crop factor is 1.5x)
These long shades are each made up of two lens-hoods fitted together.
The article indicates they're more useful at some angles than others .... which is true.
But how often can you be sure to only be pointing the lens at a given angle relative to the suns position? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7576 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
I use a hood on most of my lenses except the macro lenses. A good hood not only protects the lens but also decorate the lens. _________________ The best lens is the one you have with you.
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11028 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Hood always helps IQ -- sometimes only tiny bit; sometimes very much.
Lens is always flaring & ghosting even when we can't detect -- hoods help with that, improve contrast, saturation... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mos6502
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mos6502 wrote:
The use of lens hoods has more to do with the type of camera than with the lens.
The reason is simple. If you're using an SLR you will know when the lens is producing flare. But if you're using a rangefinder or TLR - you won't know until you process the images because the viewfinder won't flare the same as the taking lens due to optical differences and parallax. On anything other than an SLR a hood is good insurance against accidental/unexpected flares ruining a photo.
There are also some lenses which are susceptible to stray light more than others. The Pancolar 2/50 for instance has no built in shading and cross light can lower contrast appreciably. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013 Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 17, 2016 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
It`s very easy to see flares thru a good EVF. Many of my lenses has uncommon filter sizes, so therefor I just use my hand on those (block the sun with my left hand) _________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Himself
Joined: 01 Mar 2007 Posts: 3245 Location: Montreal
Expire: 2013-05-30
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Himself wrote:
I used to have them hood hooked to my Canon lenses but then B+W circular polarizer came along and I couldn't use them anymore. The hoods that is. _________________ Moderator Himself |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
Mos6502 wrote: |
The use of lens hoods has more to do with the type of camera than with the lens.
The reason is simple. If you're using an SLR you will know when the lens is producing flare. But if you're using a rangefinder or TLR - you won't know until you process the images because the viewfinder won't flare the same as the taking lens due to optical differences and parallax. On anything other than an SLR a hood is good insurance against accidental/unexpected flares ruining a photo. |
Good point. However, the optical viewfinder of SLR cameras (or DSLR) can also trick the photographer. It is common that the mirror, prism, ground glass, Fresnel and eyepiece lenses suffer from spurious reflections, producing flare and ghosts others than those from the camera lens itself. These problems are more evident in older SLR cameras, in which the reflective silver or aluminum film on the mirror and prism are often deteriorated, or the eyepiece lenses are dirty or hazy. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
leemik
Joined: 21 Feb 2011 Posts: 107 Location: Quincy, MA
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
leemik wrote:
Sometimes the flaring is so subtle you can't detect it with an modern slr either until you look at the pics
I was taking some product shots in a lowly lit room on a black background with flash and I didn't notice anything at the time of taking the pics but when I got them into Photoshop in their full glory most of them had a slight orange tinge on one side.. I was like what the heck something must be wrong with the camera or the lens!?! I re-shot everything with a hood to see if the lighting was causing the effect and turns out it was! So now I always shoot with a hood if at all possible.
--mike |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dogtag
Joined: 27 Jul 2013 Posts: 164 Location: Holland del norte
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dogtag wrote:
I must admit I almost never use lenshoods, unless it's an matching hood (konica 35 and 28/24mm rectangular hoods f.e.)
Just love the classic look, but in practice it's really impractical (try to get the lens cap on ). _________________ Konica AR fan
Konica AR, 135/2.5 135/3.2 135/3.5 100/2.8 85/1.8 55/3.5-macro 57/1.2 57/1.4 50/1.4 52/1.8 50/1.7(3x) 40/1.8 35/2.8 35/2 28/1.8 24/2.8
Missing UC 15mm and 21mm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Sun May 04, 2014 10:34 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
norland
Joined: 10 Aug 2013 Posts: 165
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
norland wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
Many lenses, especially tele lenses, have coverage far above APS-c or FF.
Some lenses have image cicles 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 enhances that issue. |
On my Tamron 500mm mirror lens I've added a sort of lens hood at the back ... the "normal" 30.5mm filter these lenses use at the camera end,
is threaded both sides.
Got the idea from this forum -- a mention about attaching baffles to the camera end of some lenses.
So a couple of days ago I got a cheap 30.5mm filter with a black rim, took out its glass, and screwed the new rim onto the existing filter.
No problem with distance, that assembly still does not come to level with the Adaptall mount.
There is definitely no cut-off problem, but the daylight has not been good enough since then to tell if it actually improves anything. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Zen
Joined: 17 Jun 2009 Posts: 262 Location: Northwest USA
|
Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jeff Zen wrote:
I always use hoods. With all due respect to those who have opinions different than mine, I don't think I've ever met a professional photographer who didn't recognize the usefulness of hoods. You would think that users of old fast single-coated lenses would be the first to champion the use of lens hoods! I know there are always exceptions, and different tastes, but reading some of the anti-hood comments on this thread makes me feel like I've entered the Twilight-Zone. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
Think that a lens hood is to flare as an umbrella is to rain. Then ask to a Londoner and a Californian what they think about the umbrella. Answers:
- Indispensable!
- Useless! _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
I am a Californian.
We have a collection of umbrellas.
They do get used, almost daily during the right season. (not this season unfortunately). _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dazey
Joined: 26 Jan 2014 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
On topic I use hoods, as much for physical protection as anything else. I have lots of dented hoods! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|