About lens hoods

[iggers]

I'm curious about the use of lens hoods. I've used them here and there, but never enough to get a sense of how much difference they make. They can be a nuisance for making it impossible to close the camera case over the lens, without removing the hood first. I just ordered one to go on my relatively new Jupiter-8 2/50 (LTM) and I'm planning to get one for my Industar 61 2.8/55 L/D.

I'd be interested to hear from members about their experience with lens hoods, and would particularly like to see sample photos taken with and without a hood in place, where the presence or absence of a hood seems to have made a big difference. Are they only useful out of doors, or can they also be useful indoors? Are they ever detrimental? Have you ever had a lens that was seemingly transformed by a hood, from blah to bling bling?

 

[bmattock]

Things that have the biggest visible affect on photos:

1) Tripod use.
2) Lens hood.
3) Mirror Lockup (for SLRs).
4) Polarizer lens filter.

Pretty much in that order. If you can, use a tripod. If you can't, a lens hood is something that should ALWAYS be on your camera. Even at night. Even on an overcast day. The best test is the self-test - just TRY IT. Go out and take photos as you normally would. But take two of each. First without, then with. Always in that order. Look at your photos. You WILL see a difference.

Lens hoods stop lens flare - and most people think of that as those hexagonal marks they get when they shoot into the sun. But anyone who uses older lenses or uncoated lenses knows that flare is something that produces a general wash-out and lowering of contrast - overall - hard to see without something to directly compare it to. All lenses, even modern multi-coated ones, can benefit.

Worst case scenario - using a lens hood won't HURT your photos. So I'd use one.

Do I always take my own advice. Nah. I'm stupid that way sometimes.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[varjag]

I just ordered one to go on my relatively new Jupiter-8 2/50 (LTM) and I'm planning to get one for my Industar 61 2.8/55 L/D.

Same hood should fit on both.

 

[GeneW]

I've not done side-by-side tests, but I often try out my lenses without a hood when I first get them to see how obviously flare-prone they are, and under what conditions. I find most are more prone to flare than I'd have guessed. Once I add a hood, I seldom get objectionable flare, so I just leave on the hood after that. You're right, though, the cam no longer fits into an ever-ready case with a hood attached which is why I carry my cams in a small camera bag instead, and leave the hoods attached to the lenses.

Gene

 

[Elmer Fishpaw]

I have the Industar and Jupiter lens and I always use a METAL hood. It does reduce flare, and since filters such as the UV ones put an extra layer of glass between scene and film, I don't use a UV filter as the metal hood protects. The C/V rectangular hood for the 21/25 Skopar really helps with flare a ton. It was worth the money.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think that Gene is correct in his thinking on lens hoods. I go his way also and use a camera bag so the hood can stay on. I do use the bottom half of a never ready case. The only time that I have heard of a lens hood being detrimental was when using flash as it could cause a shadow or something. I never use flash so couldn't say for sure either way. For some reason I have the unscientific impression that RF lenses are more flare prone than the SLR lenses that I have used.

Bob

 

[rbiemer]

Here's a photo that I should have used a hood for!
INdoors but fiarly bright sunlight coming in from my right.
I was using a yellow filter on my J-12(35mm) lens.
Now I always use a hood with that combination.
My exposure was not right but the flare I think is very evident.
I am going to try this one again.
Rob

 

[Roger Hicks]

RF lenses should be less flare prone as they are usually simpler.

Flare is often worst on overcast days or when shooting in a white 'cove', because there's so much undirectional light around. We had great difficulty in persuading people of this when we had a hire studio in London but you could see the flattening of contrast even on a Polaroid.

ALWAYS use a hood unless there is a really compelling reason not to, e.g. you can't get one (any help on aq 50/1.2 Canon, anyone?)

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[rbiemer]

For some reason I have the unscientific impression that RF lenses are more flare prone than the SLR lenses that I have used.

Bob

Maybe it seems that way because you can see if there's a problem and correct before you shoot the picture?
Rob

 

[justins7]

I disagree. Use step-up rings

I disagree. Use step-up rings

In my opinion lens hoods ARE detrimental if they prevent you from wanting to carry the camera or take it out readily due to its added bulk. Plus they unnecessarily block the finders.

When I used them in the past (on a Summicron 50mm), I would subconsciously imagine my M6 much larger, and often just left it in my bag. So to compromise I just add a step-up filter ring (or two) that adds only about 10mm to the lens length. These seem to sufficiently block bright light from the corners. I have been doing this for years and have NEVER had problems with flare or lower contrast (which can be adjusted in the final print anyway). A lens cap or filters can go right onto the step-up-ring "shade" without worrying about any detachable thing. Less is more.

I suppose if you do slow, nature-type photography lens shades are more important, but for me, taking pictures on the sly, in cities, I only need the rings.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Rob

You may be right as it was only an impression I had nothing for proof.

Roger (correct spelling)

you are likely correct.

Bob

 

[Mike Richards]

I like the collapsible rubber hoods. Make it easier to stow the camera in the bag. Cheap. Effective. Not elegant at all. You do need to get the right ones to prevent vignetting, as with any general purpose hood.

 

[bmattock]

RF lenses should be less flare prone as they are usually simpler.

Have to take slight issue with you there, Roger. In the first place, unlike SLRs, many RF users tend to keep and continue to use older - in some cases, very much older, RF lenses.

In the second place, modern SLR zoom lens design is continually being redesigned, rebuilt, reformulated. New glasses, plastic elements, all in an attempt to control for so many variables - pincushioning, barrel distortion, and yes, internal flare. RF lens design tend to remain a bit more static - having found their ne plus ultra in most cases, some time ago.

Coatings varied in quality in earlier times, so older RF lenses still in use have to contend with this.

And finally - a typical RF user will not automatically reject a lens with oil on the aperture leaves - an SLR user will (my opinion only). Oily leaves contribute to internal light scattering and bounce and thus, flare.

So in design terms - you're right, simpler would be better - less prone to flare. But in real-world terms, I think RF lenses are MORE prone to flare for the reasons given.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I like the collapsible rubber hoods. Make it easier to stow the camera in the bag. Cheap. Effective. Not elegant at all. You do need to get the right ones to prevent vignetting, as with any general purpose hood.

Commonly known as a 'toilet plunger' but what the heck - they work! Also, they are easier to cut a chunk out of if you need to clear a RF window.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[varjag]

In the second place, modern SLR zoom lens design is continually being redesigned, rebuilt, reformulated. New glasses, plastic elements, all in an attempt to control for so many variables - pincushioning, barrel distortion, and yes, internal flare. RF lens design tend to remain a bit more static - having found their ne plus ultra in most cases, some time ago.

It is noticeably harder to eliminate flare in 10-15-20 element optical system than in 5-8 one. Also add resin asph patches and very complex kinematic schemes to that, and no wonder that SLR zooms require far more effort to get right than RF primes.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

I always use a lens hood whenever possible. Dan, I know you saw my vented hood on the Sonnar 50/1.5.

Which did you end-up buying for your LTM lenses? What you don't want is one that significantly blocks-out the viewfinder. The vented hood is the best, at least for my Contax.

 

[laptoprob]

(any help on aq 50/1.2 Canon, anyone?) (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Roger, My 1,2 Canon is equipped with a 57mm clamp hood by Minolta made for the Hi-Matic series. Works perfectly and is reversible for storage.

Rob.

 

[iggers]

What filter size for ... ?

What filter size for ... ?

I have to check the auction. It was from "Heavystar", and if I recall correctly it was a 40.5mm size. I hope it fits.

Do you have any idea what sizes I would need for:

• Jupiter 8 on a Kiev
• Helios 103 on a Kiev
• Jupiter 3 in Leica thread mount

I always use a lens hood whenever possible. Dan, I know you saw my vented hood on the Sonnar 50/1.5.

Which did you end-up buying for your LTM lenses? What you don't want is one that significantly blocks-out the viewfinder. The vented hood is the best, at least for my Contax.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

The Heavystar vented hoods look nice and cost about half of what I paid for my 2nd hand Hoya.

40.5 screw will fit the J-8 and J-3 for sure. I don't own any of the industars. Mine also fits and doesn't vignette on my 135/4 Sonnar (though it could be a lot longer) and my 35/2.8 J-12 (which is really recessed anyway).

In Contax/Kiev, the only (common) lenses I know of that don't take 40.5 screw 42mm push are the Sonnar or Jupiter-9 85/2. By common I mean not the Olympia Sonnar 180/2.8, or such rarities!

 

[former member]

My Helios-103 also takes 40.5mm screw-in accessories.