Jump to content

OK to use 24 Elmar without lens hood on M9?


andalus

Recommended Posts

No joke unless it's on you.

 

On my 50 lux and 135 I can use a B&W pol filter and the hood works.

 

On my 24 Elmar it has the new screw on hood. if I put the pol on that lens, there's no way I can use the hood. no way to screw it on.

 

so the question remains, how critical is using the hood for outdoor, sunlit shots?

 

is this question too hard to understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never used a Leica lens without the hood attached. Why would they make it if it were not at some times essential? So...who has experience NOT using a hood. Has nit mattered in their shots?

 

Is that simple enough for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell you what.

 

Be a devil.

 

Go on.

 

Just give it a whirl.

 

If you like the results, you're away. If not, try something else. Nobody's going to die. Hoods are not required by law.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I want to oput my 46mm B&W linera polarizer on this 24 Elmar, but that's inpossible given the design of the new lens hood that come with the camera. Any issues in NOT using the lens hood to take photos with the pol on??

 

Given that with a polarizer you won't be facing towards the sun (supposing it is for typical 'landscapes') then you should have no problem using the lens without a lens hood.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given that with a polarizer you won't be facing towards the sun (supposing it is for typical 'landscapes') then you should have no problem using the lens without a lens hood.

 

Steve

I don't routinly use a filter and hood. If a filter is on it protects the lens and I can shade the sun with my free hand if I see a flare or loss of contrast

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't routinly use a filter and hood. If a filter is on it protects the lens and I can shade the sun with my free hand if I see a flare or loss of contrast

 

Thats easy to do using a DSLR, but is a considerable skill using a rangefinder.

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a solution for that problem: :D

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use hoods on ALL my lenses, even when shading is not necessary or even possible (as with extreme wide angle lenses). Hoods create a protective 'deformation zone' like the one in your car, that means that a dent in the metalwork is not invariably accompanied by a broken rib case. In other words, a safety margin. Even a dinged filter thread is a p.i.t.a.

 

The old man from the Age of the FIKUS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, its good protection, at least for the first bounce, and guards against minor knocks.

 

I'm not sure what is 'bad' about using a hood, I've never been privy to knowing the downsides, but I'd rather concentrate on making the photograph than performing hand shadows.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take would be "Spending a lot to get very compact lenses and then putting a womping big shade on them sounds a bit curious IMHO." ;)

 

But we'll still be having the shade/no shade debate 100 years from now (well, "we" the forum, not "we' the individuals posting on this thread today). There are good reasons supporting both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the bigness of the hood that's a bother, but rather, while I can mount a Leica UVA filter on the lens and use the hood, I cannot mount a B&W polarizer and also attach hood. The new design of these hoods makes this impossible. Pain the the arse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...