Anyone go hoodless?

[msbarnes]

I'm interested in a collapsible lens for it's compactness.

I'm mostly thinking about an 50mm f3.5 Elmar or 50mm f2.0 Summitar. I feel that a rigid hood would be bulky and a rubber hood would be fidly.

Anyone use one without a hood regularly? All things equal, any one of these lenses less flarey than the other?

 

[Moriturii]

You really really shouldn't use these "old timey" lenses with no hood unless it's in mint/perfect/like new, condition. Use a hood.

 

[charjohncarter]

You really really shouldn't use these "old timey" lenses with no hood unless it's in mint/perfect/like new, condition. Use a hood.

I agree, but try and find one. I've had a 'watch' for a hood for my Olympus 35RC on EBay for over a year. Those rubber ones are so generic you don't know if they are shading anything. I got a rubber one for my Oly but it blocked the rangefinder and part of the viewfinder. So be careful buying one. Plus, after a couple years the rubber falls apart.

 

[pschauss]

I routinely use my Industar-22s without a hood. As long as I don't shoot into the sun, I have no problems with flare and contrast is similar to the results I get with a lens like a Jupiter 8 which I do use with a hood. My Industars are late 50's vintage and, I believe, coated.

 

[msbarnes]

Thank you for your advice.

It seems that a more modern lens is more suitable if going hoodless.

 

[Vics]

I ALWAYS use a hood. My friends who never use one always ask me why my pictures look better than theirs. They think I have some kind of magical camera. I tell them all the same thing: Use a tripod when you can, keep your lens clean and ALWAYS use a lens hood! The only ones you don't need it for are the shots where the light is directly behind you. That's only a small percentage of my pictures.

 

[D.O'K.]

Although I usually use a hood I've been surprised at the high number of flareless pictures achieved without one--including those shot into the light.

My summitar in particular flares much less than its internet reputation--although it's coated, which probably helps (moreover its "barn doors" hood is so fiddly to use and ridiculous in appearance that I'd rather risk the flare...)

I've no experience of the elmar but have an industar 22 (a FSU elmar copy, more or less) which is also OK without a hood, although more flarey than the summitar.

Regards,
D.

 

[Guaranteed]

Coming from Dslrs RF hoods are so small I don't even notice them, I may as well use red loctite on them.

 

[msbarnes]

Yeah, it's true that hoods are small, but what I want is a camera/lens combination that I can put in my coat pocket and take out for an occasional use.

My idea was a Leica LTM + Collapsible Summitar/Elmar or Rollei 35s. I'd prefer something simple, compact, and somewhat ready to shoot. I don't like folders and I'd prefer manual exposure and focus so that eliminates the fine Contax cameras and other point-and-shoots.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I found the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar doesn't flare as much as a Summitar. But a hood is still the best way to go in my opinion.

 

[drew.saunders]

I've not used my 1956-vintage 50/3.5 much, but I haven't noticed any flare in the few photos I've taken with it, all hoodless. The contrast may be a wee lower than if I had a hood, but not objectionably so. My 1951-vintage 90/4 LTM does have flare problems. I don't use it much, since my 1973 90/2.8 "fat" has a hood and is about the same size.

 

[Chris101]

I never used either of those 50s, but I used to have an Ultron 35mm. It flared a lot hood or no, so I ditched the hood and screwed on a filter to keep my grubby fingers off it's glass.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Thank you for your advice.

It seems that a more modern lens is more suitable if going hoodless.

I've almost always used my Summitar without a hood. Even the Summarit. The hood is bulky but it's a good idea to carry it on a very bright, sunny day. As stated before, it's a must if your lens is not in excellent condition.

 

[maddoc]

Usually, no hood for me ...

But having a clean lens helps (above is from my slightly hazy red-scale 50/3.5 Elmar sans hood)

 

[MikeL]

Anyone go hoodless?

Yup, never had a choice in the matter.

 

[Rico]

I have proper hoods (FISON w/Elmar 50/3.5) for my lenses, but never use them. While my Elmar is a Red-Scale (and thus coated), it nonetheless flares in the sun. I call it art. 🙂

 

[Bill58]

I always use a hood no matter what lens.