Lens Shades - Yes or No

[Pioneer]

I am going to be using my Planar 50 ZM this month. Should I use the lens shade? I have never run into any problems with flare while using this lens in the past so I am inclined to leave the lens shade off. Can anyone think of a good reason to keep it on? What say you??

 

[plexi]

I never use any protection filters so the lens hood is my protection, I've found the lens hood have saved a few lenses taking the most of the impact in a drop.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I rarely use a lens shade on any of my 50mm lenses. I probably should on some of my post-War Nikkor glass, as they can be pretty flare prone. But I would think that Planar 50 ZM with the modern coatings should be fine.

What @plexi mentions might be a consideration, or maybe using a clear filter, or just not dropping the camera. 😉

Best,
-Tim

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

If I have a lens hood, I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't use it. (Well, at least if it's a cool-looking lens hood; if it makes the camera look dorky, I'd leave it in the box.)

 

[wes loder]

How much does it intrude into the viewfinder view? If only a bit, I'd use the shade. If it does, skip it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My 50/2 ZM was even with filter as package.

It is up to you which part to get bumped.
Front element, filter or hood.

I have purchased Summarit-M once and before going out, it got filter and hood.

I went to backyard, holding camera slightly up.

Bird shit went on hood.
It was my choice between front element, filter and hood....

 

[Dogman]

I use filters but not hoods. Zeiss ZM lenses have the T* coating. Never been bothered with flare.



.................................................................

 

[boojum]

I use hoods. I have never had one introduce a problem. It has reduced them.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I am going to be using my Planar 50 ZM this month. Should I use the lens shade? I have never run into any problems with flare while using this lens in the past so I am inclined to leave the lens shade off. Can anyone think of a good reason to keep it on? What say you??

Right back at you: why would you NOT use the shade? Personally, I've always used shades on my lenses - no exceptions (reasons: flair & bump protection primarily). I suppose there are reasons not to use a shade: intrusion into the finder and maybe vignetting?

A few years ago, I bumped my 35mm Ultron pretty hard - against the shade; it whacked out the shade to the point I had to replace it, but the shade saved the front element.

 

[neal3k]

I use my baseball cap for a lens shade. Works great.

 

[Richard G]

The first two Leica lenses I had the hood reversed on the lens and was capped on the base of the hood. So I always had them on. Only lately have I used hoods less. On ZM 50 hood was bent when I dropped the C Sonnar. I'm even leaving the FISON hood of the 1950s Elmar 50 just lately. Till I get burnt with that strategy.

With no filter, it keeps fingers away...

My new (to me) black leather case for the M5 allows me to keep the hood on the C Biogon 35 and on the C Sonnar 50 and still comfortably close the whole case up.

Hoods add to the bulk and inconvenience. I went 40 years not dropping anything. I reckon you'll be fine going without.

 

[skahde]

I like to use hoods as bumpers and for a more carefree handling of the whole camera with reduced risk for fingerprints or scratches on lenses or filters. With the 2/50 ZM Planar it's a no-brainer for me. The hood is compact and vented. With respect to flare I do not see much of a point in small hoods. Compendiums work, most hoods don't change a lot.

 

[d_c]

I leave lens hoods and good quality filters permanently attached to all my lenses, not so much for flare but mostly to prevent fingerprints, dust, rain and hard objects getting to the front element.

 

[Ljós]

For general carry I like to keep shades to a minimum, and thus prefer lenses that are small to begin with and also don't need much in way of shades, for example Summaron 2,8 35mm which I used to own and now Canon 35mm 2.8 LTM which I currently use, both with nicely recessed front elements. Both profit from added lens hoods in terms of reduced flare etc., but you don't have to worry much about mechanically harming the front elements even without a shade. And even without lens hoods I don't find them to be flare magnets.

 

[laurentb]

I leave a hood on my lenses as soon as they are mounted on the camera. Not sure they are always useful for flare control (but they never hurt), but the bumper effect is appreciated.

I recently killed a CV hood when my Nokton fell from the camera because I did not lock it properly. The lens is perfectly safe, so I'm glad the hood was there.

Concerning the ZM Planar (that I stupidly sold some time ago) the hood does not block the finder too much.

 

[Freakscene]

There is one specific reason you should always use a hood with this lens. The ZM 50 Planar is one of the most flare resistant rangefinder 50s you can use. But it does flare, often badly, if light shines directly on the stupid chromed bayonet for the hood and then reflects back onto the lens. So I have a tapered plastic square hood from tahusa.co, which does a good job of keeping light off the *&^%ing bayonet. Cosina and Zeiss, please make the bayonet matte and black.

Marty*

*I am a Zeissaholic, even if Cosina makes them. Tomioka made many of the Zeiss Contax SLR lenses (AEJ and MMJ) after all.

 

[AnnaKeller]

I’d keep it on. Even if you haven’t had flare issues before, the hood still offers a bit of protection and helps with contrast when you have strong side or back light. You won’t always notice flare in the viewfinder, but it can still affect micro-contrast.

That said, if you’re shooting in controlled or flat light and prefer the smaller size, leaving it off is unlikely to cause problems. It’s one of those cases where there’s very little downside to using it, and occasional benefit when conditions change.

 

[Godfrey]

I am going to be using my Planar 50 ZM this month. Should I use the lens shade? I have never run into any problems with flare while using this lens in the past so I am inclined to leave the lens shade off. Can anyone think of a good reason to keep it on? What say you??

Yes. Lens hoods offer protection for the front element of the lens in addition to reducing flare and improving contrast.
They can be inconvenient sometimes; yes again. It's your choice.

There's no obligation to use one, or not. My question back to you is: why is this even a question? It's kinda like wearing a hat... a hat can shade your eyes against the bright sun and sky, keep your head from getting sun burned, and keep your head warm in the chilly wind, but is often a bit of a pain to keep track of, can get sweaty on a warm day, and can get in the way when you're using a camera. So using a hat is up to you...

G

 

[santino]

There is one specific reason you should always use a hood with this lens. The ZM 50 Planar is one of the most flare resistant rangefinder 50s you can use. But it does flare, often badly, if light shines directly on the stupid chromed bayonet for the hood and then reflects back onto the lens. So I have a tapered plastic square hood from tahusa.co, which does a good job of keeping light off the *&^%ing bayonet. Cosina and Zeiss, please make the bayonet matte and black.

Marty*

*I am a Zeissaholic, even if Cosina makes them. Tomioka made many of the Zeiss Contax SLR lenses (AEJ and MMJ) after all.

A bit off topic but which lenses did Tomioka make for the Contax? All made in Japan lenses? I can imagine that all made in West Germany lenses were made by Zeiss, right?

 

[BillBingham2]

While I hate that it adds size to the rig, they are on almost every lens that I use a lot. Almost double the size of my old 85/1.8 Nikkor.

The only exception has been a couple of old & slow Leica lenses (35/3.5 & 90/4).