Lens Shades - Yes or No

[Dogman]

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.

Your first post, @AnnaKeller . Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay.


Marty mentioned the chrome filter ring reflecting. That's a good reason to use a filter with a black metal ring. Covers the chrome, reduces the chances.

Hoods are good in the rain. But I don't go out in the rain. Sometimes they just look ridiculous--wide angle saucer hoods, for instance. Sometimes they make the lenses too long, whacking every door frame you walk through. Snap on hoods snap off and go rolling away. Screw on hoods can get stuck on the lens and can unscrew by themselves--amazingly talented little buggers. The Zeiss hoods are nice and some of the best fitting. I don't think they're necessary but they're some of the best of the bad bunch. IMO the best lens hood designs were those on the first Fuji lenses, the 35/1.4 and 18/2. Look something like a squashed beer can. Low profile but cut precisely to fit the image area of the lens. Haoge later made some metal hoods of the same design that I think are even nicer. I do use those. They become part of the lens, never getting in the way, never looking ridiculous or bumping into stuff.

In the end, it's really a personal decision on use of hoods, filters, cameras, lenses, subject matter and the person you end up marrying. 🐶



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

 

[Dan]

IMO the best lens hood designs were those on the first Fuji lenses, the 35/1.4 and 18/2. Look something like a squashed beer can. Low profile but cut precisely to fit the image area of the lens.

Totally agree, Dogman, I have those two lenses and the hoods stay on all the time. If only the original lens caps were done properly....

 

[Shadams]

I always use a filter. Rugged life. In front of the filter if I cannot see directly through the lens while shooting, I use a hood.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... Screw on hoods can get stuck on the lens and can unscrew by themselves--amazingly talented little buggers. ...

Funny you say that. While I do use shades on all of my lenses, I absolutely hate screw-on shades for the reasons you state. In addition, if you use filters, the screw-on shade needs to screw onto the filter - and sometimes the shade gets stuck to the filter. What a PITA!! My answer to this is to never buy a lens that requires [only] a screw-on shade.

 

[Freakscene]

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?

Tomioka made most of the AEJ and MMJ lenses. Some assembly was done elsewhere, it seems. The shift lens was made (definitely assembled) by Schneider, for example. The AEG and MMG lenses, however, were definitely made by Zeiss.

 

[Pioneer]

First, thank you for the time each of you took to answer my question. Your responses were actually quite enlightening and I enjoyed reading them.

Second, I do have the lens shade that is sold by Zeiss (or Cosina) for this lens and I do use it ALMOST all the time. To be completely honest, up until recently I never gave it a 2nd thought.

However; somewhere along the way there always seems to be a "however" that makes you think. Last fall I took a week long hiking/hunting trip and one of the lenses I packed was this Planar ZM. You are all correct, It really is a wonderful lens and I do enjoy using it. But somehow the lens hood did not make it into the backpack so it was left behind. This is somewhat unusual since it pretty much lives on the lens.

Anyway, to make a long story a bit shorter, I haven't used the Planar since that little trip but I did take quite a few photographs with it on the hike and not one single photo suffered from flare of any kind or even low contrast or any of the other typical issues that are usually associated with not using a lens shade. As I mentioned in the opening post I was getting ready to use the lens again and that trip came to mind. So I started asking myself why should I even bother since the lens seems to get along just fine without the shade. As for glass scratches or other damage from striking other objects I haven't had any problems but, like I said, I typically do use the lens shade so I may have unknowingly escaped damage in the past without even realizing it. But the front objective is nicely protected even without the hood in place.

Thus the question. Being a creature of habit the Planar is currently wearing its' lens shade and it will probably stay there like it has for the last several years. But I wondered if there were any other risks that I wasn't thinking of that should be considered. Also, if any of you ever have the opportunity to add this fine little lens to your collection I can strongly recommend it. It has never let me down and, if you couldn't tell by now, I am quite fond of it.

 

[Freakscene]

First, thank you for the time each of you took to answer my question. Your responses were actually quite enlightening and I enjoyed reading them.

Second, I do have the lens shade that is sold by Zeiss (or Cosina) for this lens and I do use it ALMOST all the time. To be completely honest, up until recently I never gave it a 2nd thought.

However; somewhere along the way there always seems to be a "however" that makes you think. Last fall I took a week long hiking/hunting trip and one of the lenses I packed was this Planar ZM. You are all correct, It really is a wonderful lens and I do enjoy using it. But somehow the lens hood did not make it into the backpack so it was left behind. This is somewhat unusual since it pretty much lives on the lens.

Anyway, to make a long story a bit shorter, I haven't used the Planar since that little trip but I did take quite a few photographs with it on the hike and not one single photo suffered from flare of any kind or even low contrast or any of the other typical issues that are usually associated with not using a lens shade. As I mentioned in the opening post I was getting ready to use the lens again and that trip came to mind. So I started asking myself why should I even bother since the lens seems to get along just fine without the shade. As for glass scratches or other damage from striking other objects I haven't had any problems but, like I said, I typically do use the lens shade so I may have unknowingly escaped damage in the past without even realizing it. But the front objective is nicely protected even without the hood in place.

Thus the question. Being a creature of habit the Planar is currently wearing its' lens shade and it will probably stay there like it has for the last several years. But I wondered if there were any other risks that I wasn't thinking of that should be considered. Also, if any of you ever have the opportunity to add this fine little lens to your collection I can strongly recommend it. It has never let me down and, if you couldn't tell by now, I am quite fond of it.

There are a couple of specific angles relative to the light that cause flare from the bayonet. I tend to find them pretty often. If you don’t shoot that way, you’ll essentially never see flare. Shooting under spotlights also exacerbates the issue. The T* coatings are really wondrous, and still much better than the coatings used by other lensmakers.

Zeiss is Neiss.

 

[Mos6502]

I use a shade if I'm using a filter. A flat piece of glass will catch glare across its whole surface at once, whereas a curved element doesn't. If you're not using an SLR or live view, you won't know it happened until you've seen the picture. Otherwise I rarely use a hood. Sometimes on a misty or drizzly day it can help keep droplets off the lens and is a good idea.

 

[peterm1]

When I use hoods on modern glass it is usually more for the sake of protecting the lens from impacts. With older lenses I will however use them especially if the lens has a reputation for flaring.

 

[yanchep_mike]

Old or new lens, flare, no flare, makes no difference i always have a hood on the lens want go out without.

mk

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I use a shade if I'm using a filter. A flat piece of glass will catch glare across its whole surface at once, whereas a curved element doesn't. If you're not using an SLR or live view, you won't know it happened until you've seen the picture. Otherwise I rarely use a hood. Sometimes on a misty or drizzly day it can help keep droplets off the lens and is a good idea.

This. I nearly always use a filter outdoors (black and white film and need for a yellow contrast filter and all that, or a polarizer, skylight, or 81A on the rare occasions I shoot colour film). So I'm also nearly always using a lens hood as well.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

First, thank you for the time each of you took to answer my question. Your responses were actually quite enlightening and I enjoyed reading them.

Second, I do have the lens shade that is sold by Zeiss (or Cosina) for this lens and I do use it ALMOST all the time. To be completely honest, up until recently I never gave it a 2nd thought.

However; somewhere along the way there always seems to be a "however" that makes you think. Last fall I took a week long hiking/hunting trip and one of the lenses I packed was this Planar ZM. You are all correct, It really is a wonderful lens and I do enjoy using it. But somehow the lens hood did not make it into the backpack so it was left behind. This is somewhat unusual since it pretty much lives on the lens.

Anyway, to make a long story a bit shorter, I haven't used the Planar since that little trip but I did take quite a few photographs with it on the hike and not one single photo suffered from flare of any kind or even low contrast or any of the other typical issues that are usually associated with not using a lens shade. As I mentioned in the opening post I was getting ready to use the lens again and that trip came to mind. So I started asking myself why should I even bother since the lens seems to get along just fine without the shade. As for glass scratches or other damage from striking other objects I haven't had any problems but, like I said, I typically do use the lens shade so I may have unknowingly escaped damage in the past without even realizing it. But the front objective is nicely protected even without the hood in place.

Thus the question. Being a creature of habit the Planar is currently wearing its' lens shade and it will probably stay there like it has for the last several years. But I wondered if there were any other risks that I wasn't thinking of that should be considered. Also, if any of you ever have the opportunity to add this fine little lens to your collection I can strongly recommend it. It has never let me down and, if you couldn't tell by now, I am quite fond of it.

Good call. Plus the lens hood for the ZM Planar is cool looking, so you've got that covered as well.

 

[LCT]

Excellent hood, efficient and sturdy. You can use the same on ZM 35/2 and ZM 35/2.8 too. As for flare, sure the ZM 50/2 has some but less so than the Summicron 50/2 v4 or v5. Example below with M11 and ZM 50/2.

 

[wrs1145]

100% of the time.

 

[Formerly presspass]

Always. I'm a braces and belt person when it comes to this; always a lens hood and always a UV filter. It comes from more than half a century as a news photographer as well as one who has documented the work of our local volunteer fire company. When I pull up, I don't want to take time to put on a filter or a hood and I really don't want to expose the front element of the lens to water, debris, and flying embers.

 

[Ororaro]

Wearing a baseball cap, or any hat, will reveal its own importance.