Does anyone use a lenshood on their M6 ?

[pebbles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really can't tell any difference between pictures taken with or without my lenshood. I shoot quite a lot contre jour but even here I cant' really discern much difference if at all unless I direct the camera directly towards the sun which means the lens hood is pointless anyway. Any comments would be welcome.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Pebbles,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

One of the primary uses of a proper rigid lens hood is to protect a lens & its lens mount from inadvertant impact & unnecessary damage.  It is easier to repair or replace a lens hood than it is to repair or replace a lens element or a lens mount.

 

Flare protection is somewhat secondary in importance compared to the physical protection a rigid lens hood provides.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[pgk]

Depends on the lens. Depends on the angle at which the light strikes the lens. Depends on the aperture in use. And more. If the light source is in the picture this may not show flare which may well occur significantly when light strikes the lens at an angle bouncing inside from the front element. I always use a hood. A hood is more important on some lenses than others. And physical protection is useful too.

[Peter H]

I've largely stopped using hoods unless there's an obvious reason to do so.

 

There rarely is, and when there is it's usually to do with protecting the lens rather than eliminating flare, for which purpose something improvised  between the lens and the light source, like a hat or piece of card or a hand or whatever, is generally far more effective than a hood.

 

(PS I don't use an M6 anymore, but the principle applies equally to digital Ms I believe.)

[pebbles]

Just to add, i almost always have the 50mm Summicron fitted - occasionally the 35mm Summicron.

[a.noctilux]

Summicron 50 lenses are the best flare resistant in my arsenal of 50mm.

Less so with the first collapsible version.

Even then if there is no filter, flare is not so common.

 

Just today, I use a 50mm Summicron all sunny day with no hood (no filter also) : zero flare, even in contre-jour at mediterranean seaside.

 

Regards,

 

Arnaud

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use mostly older lenses which are less resistant to flare than more modern ones, so I often use a lens hood. I periodically shade my glaucoma ridden eyes and the marked increase in contrast when I do so, reminds me to do likewise for my cameras' "eyes"

[FrozenInTime]

I often use my left hand to shade the lens in harsh 3/4 on lighting.

[platypus]

Use a lens hood?....always, on all my lenses. Why?....for the well stated and very reasonable reasons put forward by Michael in post #2 of this thread. 

[250swb]

Always, and especially for protection. On a practical level it also means you can drop the lens into your camera bag and only need bother with the rear cap, the front will be protected and it makes it much quicker to work.

 

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Always for protection.

[m0n0]

Like most here, I use it more for protection for the front element. For my 35mm Summicron (IV), a lens I like to carry around use because it is light and compact, I have taken to leaving a step-up filter ring on. It gives a bit of protection, a tiny bit of shade, and allows me to use the 49mm filters and lens caps that I have a bunch of from my old Takumar glass. I like to be able to screw on a colored filter quickly as I shoot film. The cap and filters also easier to handle, being a larger size. On the cron it's easier to use a lens cap over the step-up ring than its native lens hood, which leaves its tiny 39mm lens cap recessed and fiddly to pinch out.  For this reason I don't use a lens cap when I use a proper lens hood.  Between a hood with no lens cap and my step-up ring plus lens cap, I prefer the latter to keep off the lint that can get picked up inside a bag.

[pebbles]

Thanks a lot for those comments. I'll keep the lens hood off. I'm usually very careful with handling the camera so I hope a hood isn't needed for protection.

[ramosa]

With my M6, I currently only have a Cron 50mm v5. It has the slide out hood. I don't use it often, unless really shooting toward low sunlight. 

[hepcat]

Hello Pebbles,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

One of the primary uses of a proper rigid lens hood is to protect a lens & its lens mount from inadvertant impact & unnecessary damage.  It is easier to repair or replace a lens hood than it is to repair or replace a lens element or a lens mount.

 

Flare protection is somewhat secondary in importance compared to the physical protection a rigid lens hood provides.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Actually, Michael, the ONLY reason to use a lens hood is to shade the front element from stray light that reduces contrast.    And although lens anti-reflective coatings have gotten MUCH better,  a lens hood is still your best defense against contrast-reducing side lighting entering the elements.

 

Any other use is ancillary.  If you're looking for protection for your front element, use a filter.  I have found that the UV/IR Cut filters that were useful for the M8 are equally useful for my M9P and do much to improve color fidelity... that with all the other caveats of using filters, of course. 

[arno_nyhm]

do i use lenshoods? of course i do. every once in a while, when it is necessary. but that is hardly the case as i do have a left hand to shade my frontlens and as this left hand is much easier to access.

 

do i keep my 12585 on and carry my camera around to show everyone what kind of a fancy camera i have?  no, i don't.

[david strachan]

Always, with every lens. Maximise contrast and control flare; minimise damage, weather and fingerprints.

Once you "ding" the front filter mount on a lens...for me it's ruined.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

I would say "Ancillary" is not the correct term to describe the value of the protection afforded for a lens's mount & the lens's optics when someone is using a proper rigid lens hood.

 

A number of people who write on this Forum, along with me, have personally had specific instances where a proper rigid lens hood has protected a lens element or/& a lens mount from inadvertant impact or/& damage.

 

It is better to have a dent in a lens shade once & a while than to have to replace a lens element or repair a lens mount every so often. Or possibly to have to replace an entire lens.

 

By the way,you might like to look at Post #3370 of "I Love My MP".

 

I'm sorry my computer skills are not sufficient to bring this photographic example of a damaged hood here,. Perhaps someone else would be kind enough to "transport" it here.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[skucera]

With most lenses built since the early 1970's being well coated, I find I don't use lens hoods on them.  My few older cameras can get some terrible glare, fogging, and odd reflections without a lens hood, and that's pretty common on my older lenses, from the Sixties and earlier.  I find my Leica's older lenses, the Summicron 5cm, Elmar 9cm, and Summaron 3.5cm, aren't coated.  My Tele-Elmar from 1968 seems to be coated, even though I don't see color casts when I look at its elements, but it is much more resistant to stray light than the older lenses.

 

Anyway, I tend to use UV filters or Skylight filters on my newer lenses just to protect them from impacts.  I've also recently bought Skylight E39 filters for my Summicron and Tele-Elmar lenses, and an A36 Yellow-0 (the Leitz equivalent of a Skylight filter in the day), but I find that my lens hood doesn't fit over the filters... grrr....  I've read that Summicron and Summaron front elements are very soft, easily scratched glass, so I want to protect them, and I really like the old IROOA lens hood, so I have a slight conflict.   I just don't like the look of a floppy rubber collapsible lens hood on a Leica... just not the right aesthetic.

 

Scott

[250swb]

Shading the lens with the spare hand comes in the 'A' for effort category, but 'C' for effect. Not only are you using a hand to shade the lens and not steadying the camera but it is a hopeful action at best because with a rangefinder you can't see what effect this spare hand is having, or even if it's coming into view (especially with wide angle lenses). You can shade with a hand, body, or spare something or other if the camera is on a tripod because you can stand back and see where the shadow is cast, but as most Leica users see tripods as Dracula see's garlic that's unlikely to happen (besides which if a photographer is careful enough to use a tripod they are most likely to have a lens hood as well).

 

 

Steve