importance of a lens shade

[msbarnes]

Does a lens shade make a real difference in terms of flare for most reputable multi-coated lenses if the sun, or a bright source, is not in the frame?

I understand that a quality lens shade adds for protection, and can never hurt, but I may not want to get a lens shade for every lens I obtain all the time.

 

[dave lackey]

Does a lens shade make a real difference in terms of flare for most reputable multi-coated lenses if the sun, or a bright source, is not in the frame?

I understand that a quality lens shade adds for protection, and can never hurt, but I may not want to get a lens shade for every lens I obtain all the time.

No difference on my Cron 50. No shade for my Summarit so I don't know. Either way, I have developed my own "style" and shoot toward the light as much as anything, so I can't really help out much here.:angel: Below is an example of shooting toward the light and this photo is in LFI Master Shots M Analog gallery.

 

[rogerzilla]

They don't make a huge difference with coated lenses and filters. Half the time, direct sun still hits the front element, especially with something like the 12585 hood on a Summicron 50, since the hood is designed for a Summicron 35 as well!

What they will do is keep rain droplets off the front - which definitely affect the image - and offer a bit of protection. Whether you think this is worth dropping over 100 quid on a Summarit-M hood is up to you.

 

[Steve M.]

It depends on the lens. On every Summar I ever owned, a good shade was necessary. On both my Kodak Retinas, one w/ an Ektar lens and one w/ a Xenon, none was needed. I tested them both w/ and w/o shades in blazing New Mexico sun and saw no difference.

 

[Thardy]

I've found that it helps on my 90mm f/2.8 TE.

 

[FrankS]

Depends on the lens. Generally, uncoated lenses benefit the most.

 

[semilog]

Multicoating can reduce veiling flare and reflections. It cannot eliminate them.

You will pretty much never see a lens mounted on a professional movie camera without a tightly-cropped rectangular hood. Those lenses cost anywhere from $5000 to $30000 and up, and they generally have the most modern multicoatings available.

Similarly, research microscope optics and filters use the most advanced coatings available, and their light paths are full of baffles and field stops to keep stray light out of the system. That stray light has to go somewhere, and the goal is to keep it off of the sensor, where it will degrade contrast, or worse.

In every case the best option is to keep stray light from entering the lens.

 

[Coldkennels]

Yeah, it depends on the lens. I don't use one with most of my more modern lenses, but on some it really, really makes a difference:

Same film, same lens, same light, but one has a hood and one doesn't. It shouldn't take a genius to work out which one's which!

I was quite shocked when I saw the results of that test. But even if your lens doesn't need one, they're a good idea. I don't think you really need a £100 one for most lenses, though. Maybe buy the dedicated Leica model for your favourite lens, and a £5 collapsible rubber one for the rest? As long as it's about the right spec, it'll do the same job.

 

[ryan26]

A good front bumper...

 

[msbarnes]

Interesting. Thanks everyone. So I think a lens shade, even a cheap one, is definitely worthwhile so long as it doesn't vignette.

 

[philcycles]

I use them for protection instead of a cap when actively shooting.
Phil Brown

 

[Pablito]

I use them religiously because I have big clumsy hands and the hood helps prevent me from touching the lens surface. And the flare thing.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I too like my lenses with a hood: be it drops, fingertips, other people's clothes... And if the hood are available, why not? Virtually all my camera lenses have hoods. That also gives the things a very cool look... 🙂

 

[Corto]

I use them when it rains or snows.

And on long lenses a Rubber shade that rolls back is handy when you lay down the camera on the floor of your truck, It keeps it from sliding around (to a point). Cokin Filter holders are handy too, Keeps the lens from touching the surface of most things you lay your camera down on.

Since I never heard of any major issues with using shades (Besides casting shadows from a Flash on some setups) I see no reason not to have them on whenever the setup im using permits it.

 

[Rob-F]

If the light source is in the frame, the shade makes little difference, as the shade is then not shading much. When the light source--the sun in particular-- is just outside the frame (e.g. outside the frame with a 50mm lens on the camera, but would be within a 40mm field of view), flare can be at its worst; and that's when a really good shade makes all the difference.

 

[rogerzilla]

I suppose I should admit that I own the correct hood for all six lenses in the case, although I don't always use them. The SOOMP for the Summar is my favourite, and only cost me about 20GBP when I bought it. They're 80GBP now!

 

[f16sunshine]

I put a high quality filter and a metal shade on all my lenses. Leave the lens caps in a box all together. Lenses should be ready to shoot. A shade and filter does a much better job of both protecting and leaving you ready for the shot than a cap.

 

[Paul Luscher]

I've found them to be useful in shooting landscapes, especially if you're shooting toward the sun. They have made the difference between clean shots and shots cluttered with flare and ghosting.

 

[maclaine]

As others have said, lens hoods are just as much about protection from stray bumps (they've definitely saved my lenses undue wear and tear on occasion) as about blocking stray light. If you don't have one for a lens, though, and you are worried about flare because of the sun or a strong light just outside the frame, your hand will work just as well. I've done this countless times when out and about without a hood, and it makes a difference.

 

[sniki]

While effectiveness is disputed, neither counter-indication about placebo effect.
;-)