Are Lens Shades Really Necessary?

[Gerald]

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.

[Lightshow]

For the most part I don't use them unless a lens flares badly.

[Lloydy]

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.

[CuriousOne]

It depends.

Some lens need it, some not. Usually, more expensive lens need shades less times.

[hifisapi]

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.

[Nordentro]

I use my left hand a lot to cover up for the light. Works nice for me

[hifisapi]

[luisalegria]

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.

[Lightshow]

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.

[norland]

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?

[calvin83]

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.

[visualopsins]

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...

[Mos6502]

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.

[bernhardas]

edited

[Nordentro]

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)

[Himself]

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.

[Gerald]

[leemik]

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

[Dogtag]

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 ).

[ForenSeil]

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.

[norland]

[Jeff Zen]

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.

[Gerald]

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!

[luisalegria]

I am a Californian.
We have a collection of umbrellas.
They do get used, almost daily during the right season. (not this season unfortunately).

[Dazey]

..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!