a.g Posted August 7, 2010 Share #1 Posted August 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Recently purchased a M9 with 35mm f2.0 & absolutely love it. My question is what is the advantage/purpose of using the lens hood (on this, or any other lens)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Hi a.g, Take a look here What is the advantage of using a lens hood?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
J_Thompson Posted August 7, 2010 Share #2 Posted August 7, 2010 Congratulations on your new M9! I can't speak for others, but I use hoods on all my lenses just to keep my greasy fingers off the lens or filter while leaving the caps at home, where I can't lose the overpriced little buggers. The other more obvious use is, of course, to shield the lens from unwanted reflections when shooting into, or near the sun or another overly bright light source. Another advantage to using your plastic Summicron hood is to protect the lens from the bumps it might receive from being swung about during use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 7, 2010 Share #3 Posted August 7, 2010 Yes, hoods do all that -- when they are deep enough. Many wide angle hoods are jokes. But good hood that cuts off parts that should not land on the sensor does much to reduce flare. The absence of a hood is also a good way to spot a tyro -- even one who makes a living from his bungling. The old man from the Age of the Compendium Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 7, 2010 Share #4 Posted August 7, 2010 The absence of a hood is also a good way to spot a tyro -- even one who makes a living from his bungling. Or somebody so in control of their craft that they are confident enough to use lens flair creatively,.... or somebody who already has a filter on their lens and doesn't want to stack a hood on top and cause vignetting,..... or somebody who wants to keep the overall camera size small to avoid attention, or to keep it under a coat,....or its a dull day and there is zero effect in using a hood so you can use a lens without the hood blocking the viewfinder.... Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted August 7, 2010 Share #5 Posted August 7, 2010 What's a tyro, Lars? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted August 7, 2010 Share #6 Posted August 7, 2010 Lars is right. One of the dumbest aspects of modern compact cameras (among a few others) is that they don't have a lenshood. Even the Leica X1 doesn't have one. It should! A hood really does make a difference -- especially in contrasty bright light, which we have all the time. I always use a hood and usually leave it on -- as pointed out, not just to ward off those stray rays, but to protect the expensive glass itself. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 7, 2010 Share #7 Posted August 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) What's a tyro, Lars? ?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted August 7, 2010 Share #8 Posted August 7, 2010 Recently purchased a M9 with 35mm f2.0 & absolutely love it. My question is what is the advantage/purpose of using the lens hood (on this, or any other lens)? Congratulations on the new camera! Hoods do all the above mentioned, whereas for me I use them mostly for preventing fingerprints and gunk on the glass from me, handling the camera and others bumping into it. The 35 Summicron ASPH though is about the only lens, I regularly use without a hood, as it makes for a very compact package and let's me adjust the aperture control more easily. When I use more than one camera or change lenses a lot, I leave the hoods off the lenses, and just slip them into their compartment in my bag - the hood prevents any contact to the front element here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted August 7, 2010 Share #9 Posted August 7, 2010 Hi The critical function of hoods and filter rings is to protect the lens if it is dropped accidently. The rigid rubber ones are the most effective, cute telescopic not much good.. New hood cheaper than new lens, or even filter ring replacement or salvage. The photos may be detectably different without a hood nice pastel colors without a hood. Back caps are good if you drop a lens Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted August 7, 2010 Share #10 Posted August 7, 2010 When we were in Bhutan taking photos at a folk dance school's outdoors practice field a woman from my country with a superzoom DLSR was busy shooting away with her hood reversed and therefore completely retracted over the lens body. I suggested to her to use the hood as designed so as to reduce flare and increase contrast in some photos. She made it quite clear that her vocabulary was somewhat limited to angry, short words often bleeped from US TV and radio broadcasts. 10 minutes later, after one of her travel buddies must have spoken to her, she came over and said she was sorry. By then she had her hood properly deployed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_dernie Posted August 7, 2010 Share #11 Posted August 7, 2010 I started with photography when I was 11. My uncle was a professional cinematographer. The first two tips he gave me were to -always- use a hood and to use a tripod whenever possible. In the intervening 50 years I have learned how right he was with both. Modern multicoated optics are often quite resistant to flare, but generally the loss of contrast due to not using a lens hood is evident on many, many photographs if a hood has not been used. I -always- use one (I don't use "artistic flare"). It has the additional benefit of protection, since I almost never use filters (except on my M8.2) cheers, Frank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 7, 2010 Share #12 Posted August 7, 2010 Or somebody so in control of their craft that they are confident enough to use lens flair creatively,.... or somebody who already has a filter on their lens and doesn't want to stack a hood on top and cause vignetting,..... or somebody who wants to keep the overall camera size small to avoid attention, or to keep it under a coat,....or its a dull day and there is zero effect in using a hood so you can use a lens without the hood blocking the viewfinder.... Steve Flair is one thing, and I am for it. Flare is something different, and I'm against it. And a lightly overcast sky is one of the most efficient generators of lens flare that I know of. Also, few Leica lenses that I know of screw their hoods into a filter. They use snap-on, pull-out or screw-in into a different thread than the filter thread, so there's no risk of vignetting. The old man from the Age of the Compendium 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 7, 2010 Share #13 Posted August 7, 2010 What's a tyro, Lars? One who has little grasp of the craft. And some of them are "pros". I know -- I have worked as a picture editor. The old man from the Age of the Compendium Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Taylor Posted August 7, 2010 Share #14 Posted August 7, 2010 I'm glad I had a lens hood on my Elmarit 24 when shooting my R8. I accidentally dropped it on a concrete floor. The only damage done was to the lens hood, it put a nasty dent on the front . To my surprise, no damage to the lens or camera. I have been using this lens on a Canon Mark 5 with no sign of malfunctioning . Pictures are as sharp as ever. Hank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted August 7, 2010 Share #15 Posted August 7, 2010 Hi Hank Been there, done that, more then once. Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 7, 2010 Share #16 Posted August 7, 2010 Flair is one thing, and I am for it. Flare is something different, and I'm against it. And a lightly overcast sky is one of the most efficient generators of lens flare that I know of. Also, few Leica lenses that I know of screw their hoods into a filter. They use snap-on, pull-out or screw-in into a different thread than the filter thread, so there's no risk of vignetting. The old man from the Age of the Compendium As usual Lars you only interpret parts of the original question to suit your own sense of truth. It says 'on this or any other lens', try it, it will say that if you have another go. But as for 'flair' or 'flare', better a typo than a heresy. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted August 7, 2010 Share #17 Posted August 7, 2010 ...Modern multicoated optics are often quite resistant to flare... Yes, but the preference for zooms and super-zooms require complex design with lots of elements, often in cheap mounts -- and these lenses are very subject to flare. Many "professional" photographs, including advertising ones, retain noticeable flare. This may be explained away as being "creative", as with wonky horizons and in your face camera angles, but the effect is not pleasing. Typos for tyros, a flair for flare? Always check you're grammar! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 8, 2010 Share #18 Posted August 8, 2010 Always check you're grammar! Exactly. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted August 8, 2010 Share #19 Posted August 8, 2010 And always use emoticons because nobody understands irony any more. I've said it a billion times not to exaggerate... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 8, 2010 Share #20 Posted August 8, 2010 As usual Lars you only interpret parts of the original question to suit your own sense of truth. It says 'on this or any other lens', try it, it will say that if you have another go. But as for 'flair' or 'flare', better a typo than a heresy. Steve Steve, you misjudge or misread Lars. There is an overwhelming bank of evidence to totally support his claim(s). I, just for one, have in the past conducted serious in depth controlled tests to evaluate the (optical) benefits of using a lens hood/shade. There is no doubt about the technical image benefits gained from using an effective hood, not to mention the other physical protections that can be afforded. Yes, on some very few occasions, flair can be creative, I emphasize few. However, more image would be ruined by not using a hood than would be 'created' as art by the same practice. Let none of this be seen as a reflection on your personal style, with which I am not familiar. My comments are aimed at the broad spectrum of photography. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.