The right conditions to use the lens hood.

J

juza

Wondering Monkey
Local time
1:05 AM
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
34
i noticed that there is about 4 versions of lens hood for bessa's range of lenses.

the rectangle, semi-rectangle, rouded and ventelated rounded.

whats the difference between all these lens hood?

what is the right time to use a lens hood?

has anyone used their Bessa with the lens hood on all the time?

thanks
 
I've personally never used a lens hood on my RF cams..
that said, I usually don't shoot in a way that I feel is necessary for one.

HOWEVER.. the right time would be, imho, if you're getting some harsh strong front/side lighting going on - that could, I believe, play havoc with your shot.

Dave
 
I always use a lens hood. I use them to protect against the lighting problems that Dave described. But I also like having that added bit of protection from impacts for my lenses. Oftentimes, I am carrying the camera over my shoulder through crowds where bumps are inevitable.
 
I too always have a hood on the front of a lens. I also use a UV filter on each one as well (a different issue entirely) but each lens in my bag is always ready for action with no fiddling with lens caps. :)
 
I stopped using uv filters recently because many of them were actually cuasing my lenses to flare in stronger lighting... So anyway, no uv filters. However I do use a lens hood when i have one.
 
juza said:
i noticed that there is about 4 versions of lens hood for bessa's range of lenses.

the rectangle, semi-rectangle, rouded and ventelated rounded.

whats the difference between all these lens hood?

what is the right time to use a lens hood?

has anyone used their Bessa with the lens hood on all the time?

thanks
Click to expand...

Usually, the lens hood is designed for a particular lens. The lens field of view is the issue. The cut-out (it is not a vent) hood is so the hood does not block the viewfinder field of view.

I always use a hood with my Mamiya 6 because it is always on the lens - reverse mounted for storage. I rarely use one otherwise.

I would imagine hoods have more of an effect on uncoated lenses than coated.
 
I always use a hood, since it can only improve results and as has been said already here, it protects the lens.
 
I've read once on photo net the opinion of Kornelius Fleisher, who was responsible for the Zeiss lens testing. He recommended very strongly to shade the lenses with the best possible shade you have - in fact professional studio users often have "compendiums" for their cameras.

The current ZM lens line is very flare resistant, but still, there will always be a loss of contrast even with some mild lateral light in the lens, so even if you don't shoot against a light source, the shade improves the image quality - this is particularly apparent with slides.

I always use lens shades, and I put the coloured filters (for B&W) on only when necessary. It is futile to buy the best optical tools, and then put another glass surface on top of it just to keep the dust away, this way you decrease your lenses' optical potential and create the case for unwanted reflections and flare.
 
I have the hood for the CV 35/2.5 and 50/2.5 but I admit that I don't use it much. With my Bessa, I generally carry the camera with a neck strap under my right arm with its bag back at the car/house/etc. Without the hood, the whole package is so handy and comfortable to carry that I'm more likely to carry it. (Side grip attached, of course.) For these lenses, the dinky ring "hood" offers good protection and the font elements of these lenses aren't very protuberant.

With my ZM 50/2, ZM 35/2 and my Ikon, I always have the hood on the lens that I am using as protection for the front element. I usually carry this camera with a wrist strap and its bag over a shoulder. In my hand, I feel the lens might be more likely to inadvertently bounce off stuff. The front elements on these ZM lenses are larger and seem more exposed when the hood isn't attached.

Flare-wise, I've only had a few occasions that have ruined photos. One occurred with the CV 50/2.5 in near-blinding midsummer sun near the horizon. I should have put the hood on the Bessa that day.

Of course, flare resistance varies with lenses. My collapsible Summicron 50/2 doesn't leave the house without a hood. Compared to my other RF lenses, it seems to be a flare magnet.

The round vented hoods tend to be larger and are vented to lessen the portion of the viewfinder blocked by the hood. The smaller rectangular must be positioned so as not to block the viewfinder. The larger of these have a port to minimize blockage of the viewfinder. Unvented round metal or rubber hoods block the viewfinder the most and consequently I don't use them with 35 mm rangefinders.
 
I almost always use a hood, never a UV filter, on everything.

Sometimes the hood protects from glare. But it always protects the front element from damage.
 
I agree with mfogiel. Any light reaching your glass, while not part of the image you are recording, will degrade the contrast of your image. Modern coatings do a great job at minimizing such effect, but the hood is the still the best tool for the job.
 
I prefer to use lens hoods on all my lenses. Besides the physical protection it offers to a lens and possibly a dropped camera, it simply makes good sense to shield the lens from as much extraneous light as possible. While it's true it can't solve every case of flare, not using one is simply carelessness, IMO. Professionals who get their shots mostly use them and non-profesionals should too.

As far as using cards to shield a lens, it works well enough, just try to use a dark card or black foam-core to avoid kicking light into the lens.

The thing about using a card is that it requires you use one hand to hold it or have a stand or someone hold it for you. Unless you use a tripod, you'll have to juggle both card and camera and hope the card doesn't drift into the frame, or hope your assistant or stand is far enough out of frame as you move about as you work. If a hood could do the job well enough, why not use it and reserve the cards shield for must have situations?

Of course opinions differ.

Eli
 
It is my habit to use UV filter and lens hood.

I believe the hood will improve the lens performance, but never really bother to proof it.

As for the filter, I hate cleaning lens front element with finger prints. So I would rather clean the filter at the expense of slight loss in image quality. UV because it is colourless.
 
peter_n said:
I too always have a hood on the front of a lens. I also use a UV filter on each one as well (a different issue entirely) but each lens in my bag is always ready for action with no fiddling with lens caps. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah... I know what you mean... I personally hate lenscaps and use them only in transit.
 
thanks guys.

has it been proven that a lens hood will enhance the quality of the picture?
is there any before and after shots ?

in relation with the 35mm/f2.5 color skopar ( usesa semi rectangular hood)
have any of you guys faced a situation where you had to choose between using the hood the whole day or leave it at home?

i cant decide if i should get a hood or not
 
the hood that comes with the lens, the little round one, works fine. unless you are having flare problems don't bother with the larger hood.

joe
 
the hood that comes with the lens, the little round one, works fine. unless you are having flare problems don't bother with the larger hood.
Click to expand...
thanks. i'll try to use it more without the hood first cause i've never seen lens flare on any of my pictures so far (but its only been 2 rolls)
 
pvdhaar said:
When it comes to hoods, it's a matter of bigger is better. That's why compendiums exist..
Click to expand...

Not really. They exist because of flexiblity (both with angle of view and filter use) and their use in certain controlled situations like studio work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom