35/2 lens hood question

[eniketh]

Greetings and happy holidays to all....

My surprise Christmas present this year was a 35/2 asph M lens. I have a simple question that I will probably have answered myself in time. But to satisfy my impatience, here goes: Is using the supplied lens hood for the 35/2 as critical as it is for a focal length such as a 28 mm or wider? Would anyone recommend that it be used, exclusively, all of the time or just when common sense prevails? (Or should I just "shuddup" and shoot 😀

Have a great 2007 !

Edward
😎

 

[eon]

Please have the common sense and use it all the time. 😉

It protects the front lens from damage.
And it's not only direct sunlight that can cause flare.

/Erik


BTW, a very nice gift indeed. I would have liked to get one myself.

 

[colyn]

A lens hood should be used at all times when shooting. It protects the front element and prevents flare.

 

[edelor]

I bought a 35mm f.2 leica lens hood and decide not to use it because it produce some little damages on the painting of the lens.

 

[35mmdelux]

Lens shade ought to be on permanently, especially indoors or where there may be reflective surfaces. Its not as critical shooting landscapes.

BTW - Congratulations!

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

as Edelor said, it does cause some damage to the paint on the barrel near the filter ring

I prefer not to use hoods as they increase the profile/size of the lens. Barring a need to shoot into the sun, you will be fine without one.

 

[dreamsandart]

It used to be that I wouldn't think of using a lens without a hood, stray side-light and loss of contrast (not much you can do about direct light that coatings and design can't handle), and front element protection were the main reasons.

But with the 35 Summilux ASPH lens I've been going hood-less ( and trying the 24 ASPH without hood too now ). The fact that David Harvey at National Geographic I'd heard went hoodless with this lens gave me a bit of confidence too. I've been almost surprised how flare resistant the lens is, much better than my 60s designed lenses with hoods. For the 'protection' part I use B+W MRC filters.

Best to just try it with your style of photography and see how it works for you.

 

[pvenables]

Edward

Such a nice lens for Christmas - you're a lucky man !!.

I have the v4 Summicron which came with a hood when I bought it on ebay last year.

I find the lens vignettes wide open and even at 2.8, so I started using it without a filter or the hood and better, less-dark-in-the-corners results seemed to follow, with little flare [and I have lenses that do flare - my 50 DR flares like a demon without a hood - and it's been transformed by a £10 Chinese copy hood, again from ebay]. The lens is much less bulky without the hood and I can more easily fit the camera/lens combo in a small leather "bad weather" bag I have when the lens hod isn't attached.

I'd try a roll of film with pictures with and without the hood to see if there's any noticeable difference. I'd wager that you won't see any.

Happy shooting

Paul

 

[eniketh]

I appreciate the advice. Thanks!

 

[peter_n]

I use small (ebay dealer heavystar) hoods on my lenses more for protection than anything else. If you drop a lens on it's nose a hood can be a life-saver.

 

[furcafe]

I'm also a big advocate of hoods. And I've had some mishaps where my cheap heavystar, American Eagle, or Walz hood has ended up "taking the bullet" for a lens. So eniketh, if you end up going hood-less, let me know if you want to sell your hood to me! 😉

I use small (ebay dealer heavystar) hoods on my lenses more for protection than anything else. If you drop a lens on it's nose a hood can be a life-saver.