Why use a hood on a Leica lens?

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lately I was surprised by the fact, that some photografers don't use a lenshood, because they think, it has no real use in making a photo of a better quality.

 

A hood to some would only be great as a lens - impact- protector. As I know from recent experience this works in some occasions.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/258596-advantages-35mm-asph-ao-coming-with-metal-hoods/?p=3014699

 

 

I always was convinced that a hood also worked for blocking stay sunlight and giving more contrast in demanding situations.

 

I would be nice, if you could share your view about this subject.

[jaapv]

Not much to have a view on, Paulus, you are simply right

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

I always was convinced that a hood also worked for blocking stay sunlight and giving more contrast in demanding situations.

 

That's what they were designed for. A hood which works well does so by preventing a problem that you don'r see as a consequence. Depending on how you shoot though (subject/lighting) a hood may or may not be as critical for some as others. Personally I ALWAYS use both hood and protective filter - I like the belt and braces approach since it works for me. Some don't seem bothered.. 

[david strachan]

Committed photographers use lens hoods. Those that care about the image, and lens protection, would not do otherwise.

 

all the best..

[HeinzX]

As far as Leica M lenses are concerned, I always use a hood - the lenses are small, the hoods too. With my Canon lenses this is not the case, the most  zooms are big. With the big ones I dont always use a hood - but on these I use a protective or a UV filter.

[Trivette]

It depends on the lens. I have a Nikon macro in which the front element is so deeply recessed that a hood would be superfluous, unless one were using a filter. However, I know of no Leica lenses which would not benefit from a hood, either as protection or in order to block unwanted light from striking the front element. Of course, the telescoping hood incorporated into some 50mm Summicrons is of limited value as protection, but some sort of hood is almost a necessity, considering the lens' vulnerability to flare. I always try to use a hood, and I even believe that a good protective filter generally has no noticeable negative effect on image quality.

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It depends on the lens. I have a Nikon macro in which the front element is so deeply recessed that a hood would be superfluous, unless one were using a filter.

That's very true too. I have that lens(Micro Nikkor 55mm)...and like you, don't use a hood. Particularly as it would get in the way of the close focusing.

Compacts too, with their zooms, which are not made to take a hood.

[Paulus]

As the Elmarit-M 24 asph sometimes can be tricky, I used the stable as an extra hood.

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!

[jaapv]

It depends on the lens. I have a Nikon macro in which the front element is so deeply recessed that a hood would be superfluous, unless one were using a filter. However, I know of no Leica lenses which would not benefit from a hood, either as protection or in order to block unwanted light from striking the front element. Of course, the telescoping hood incorporated into some 50mm Summicrons is of limited value as protection, but some sort of hood is almost a necessity, considering the lens' vulnerability to flare. I always try to use a hood, and I even believe that a good protective filter generally has no noticeable negative effect on image quality.

The Summaron 35/3.5 and WATE first version are Leica examples with protruding lens barrels which don't really need a hood.

[michaelwj]

Not much to have a view on, Paulus, you are simply right

Plus it stops my fingers getting in the shot (we saw a reminder in a recent thread...)

Edited May 24, 2016 by michaelwj

[michaelwj]

As the Elmarit-M 24 asph sometimes can be tricky, I used the stable as an extra hood.

Is that the famous "barn door" lens hood

[jmahto]

I use lens hood so that I can drop my lens in pouch with only rear cap on and pull it out when needed without touching the front element.

 

Flare concern is secondary. In fact if I am going with only one lens (as in around town) then I remove the hood to reduce the profile.

[lct]

All lenses are not born equal but it is a fact that Leica lenses are not as flare proof a Zeiss ones generally, in my experience at least. Now lenses with protruding elements do need a hood unless flare is intentional obviously and it is also true, among 50mm lenses, for 50/2, 50/2.5 (pic w and w/o hood), or even 50/2 apo in some circumstances such as strong light sources outside the frame. 

 

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!

 

 

 

[CYBORA]

It looks cool 

[menos I M6]

Lens hood offer all kinds of advantages and disadvantages.

For most of my lenses I make use of their lens hoods at least part of the time.

Most lenses I use a hood have them on as to not constantly smudge the front element or protect it from bumps against other cameras, the bag, myself and other people.

 

Some lenses I use a hood only when it rains and otherwise use a filter to do the smudge and bump protection.

 

Other lenses again I never use a lens hood and filter at all.

 

Some lenses are so flare prone that I will use a lens hood at all times just to reduce this behavior (like the 35/2 v1 or the Pentax 43/1.9 LTM.

Lenses with integrated hood have their hood always extended before I take a photograph with them - it's there so use it!

 

Other lenses are flare prone but I generally like the flare they develop, so I specifically under certain circumstances do not use a hood (like my wartime Sonnar or the pre ASPH Summilux 35mm).

[jmahto]

....

 

Some lenses I use a hood only when it rains and otherwise use a filter to do the smudge and bump protection.

 

.....

In rain I use filter as well as hood since wiping rain drops frequently becomes a necessity. I don't have the softest microfibre cloth all the time and I simply use corner of my t-shirt to wipe the filter. I will not do that to my naked front element,

[IWC Doppel]

I use a hood outside and no hood inside 90% of the time. Nice to have the smaller lens profile with no hood

[smkoush]

I almost never use a hood (I don't remember the last time I did so).

 

All lenses have a filter up front. I'm sure some photographs would have had higher contrast if I had the hood, however I never noticed something that is so wrong as to clearly identify it as a missing-hood problem (i.e., if I ever get flare that is indeed annoying it happens so rarely that I don't mind). 

 

For me, the simplicity and convenience of going with the smallest form factor possible on any given lens is very important.  

[spydrxx]

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Depends on the lens and the weather.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dem331]

On thr subject of lens hoods, can someone tell me if this picture has veiling? (May not be the right technical term).  I think it has.  90mm AA with a lens hood.

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!