too radical?

ok ok ;) I just use small ones like the little ring one for the cv 35 2,5 to prevent shocks
otherwise no, don't want to see it in the rf viewfinder
 
emraphoto said:
ah sunny alberta, takes me back... or was that snowy alberta?

in the rarest of occasions i have been known to use the old hand shade trick too!
Click to expand...

Hands, hats, whatever, that's what I have usually ended up using if I saw flare in the lens, or suspected it might be there.

RayPA said:
go for it. it's fun to play with flare.
Click to expand...

My first two lenses past the 50mm on my first SLR were so flare prone, I learned how to use it in my photos. Sounds crazy, and maybe it was, but when I couldn't prevent flare, I tried to make it artistic.


I say give it a try. You might be surprised.
 
If for no other reason, I use a lens shade as a bumper, but the flare monster has bitten me enough that I am wary of it.

I'm more daring with my little CV lenses, 35/2.5 and 50/2.5, but even then, I've gotten some flare with the 50/2.5 when the sun was low. (I don't really consider the rings on these lenses to be lens shades.)
 
The purpose of a lens shade is to reduce the amount of non-image-forming light that hits the lens.
Take a cue from Hollywood, they use compenium lens shades that can effectively eliminate ALL extraneous, image-degrading light from getting to the lens -- regardless of the "super-multiicoating" and whatnot that has been used to "reduce" lens flare -- not "eliminate" it.

Having used Leitz "cutout" lens shades for decades I don't even see them in the viewfinder any more.

My opinion is that photography is all about attention to details whether consciously or unconsciously. Personally the only time I ever introduce a piece of glass between my subject and prime lens is on that rare instance that it is absolutely necessary.
 
I've taken to using the same hood for most of my rangefinder lenses. I use a step-up ring on the smaller diameter ones.
 
too radical?

back alley said:
i'm thinking of shooting without lens shades!
Click to expand...

Joe: you are just one radical dude! Don't let those societal norms hold you back. Exert your individuality.

Personally, I use shades 100% of the time as a replacement for lens caps and filters. But maybe you use lens caps and/or filters anyway.
 
back alley said:
they call this place 'sunny alberta'!
Click to expand...

If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find the sun somewhere in this image... Yup, I'm sure it's there somewhere....;)


p1062375764-4.jpg
 
Bob Helmond said:
The purpose of a lens shade is to reduce the amount of non-image-forming light that hits the lens.Take a cue from Hollywood, they use compenium lens shades that can effectively eliminate ALL extraneous, image-degrading light from getting to the lens -- regardless of the "super-multiicoating" and whatnot that has been used to "reduce" lens flare -- not "eliminate" it.

Having used Leitz "cutout" lens shades for decades I don't even see them in the viewfinder any more.

My opinion is that photography is all about attention to details whether consciously or unconsciously. Personally the only time I ever introduce a piece of glass between my subject and prime lens is on that rare instance that it is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Dont mind losing the UV filter but shade always on.
 
I think it depends on the lens. If they're not too much of a bother or if the lens gets particularly nasty with flare, then I'll use them.

For my most-used RF lens (35/2 Biogon) I don't have one, but I've yet to see the lens flare without the sun IN the frame, which the hood wouldn't stop anyway.

The CV 28/1.9 is a bit more prone to flare, and it came with a pretty small hood, so I just use leave it on.

Of course when using the R-D1 all the standard hoods suddenly become "too small".
 
i only use a shade on two of my lenses- 18/2.8 and 85/1.4, because they both perform much better with them on, and the 85's offers some protection to the front element.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom