Why use a hood on a Leica lens?

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes Enrique, this photo shows flare.

 

The correct technical term here is "Veiling Hair".

[Advertisement]

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

[dem331]

Thanks Dirk, I get this quite often with the 90mm AA, sometimes in unexpected circumstances.  The sun can be above or behind, but if the background is strongly lit in comparison to the subject it is quite common.  I do not know if it would be significantly better with a larger hood (I am using the built-in one) or without a filter. Probably should experiment.

[Exodies]

Er. I think Menos is teasing you... Or it may be a spell correction malfunction. Oh, or maybe not. 

[dem331]

Happy to be teased. No problem.

 

But my question was not meant as a joke.  With the 90mm AA in strong light I sometimes see an effect that looks like as if you were shooting through a white veil. Maybe it is not too strong on the picture I posted (it actually looks stronger on the DNG, but resizing seems to disguise the effect). I do not get this so much with other lenses. 

[menos I M6]

Yes I was but I think Enrique got the point. His photo does show what is known as "veiling flare" (in the hair part most visible in the image).

 

 

We always think that our most modern super expensive lenses cannot possible suffer from such issues when we always talk in superlatives about them - best 90mm created ever this and highest performing 50mm that.

 

In fact, flare is a matter of compromises during a lens' design - every lens (every single, one) will show it to some extend and it is simple a function of priorities of a lens' performance during it's design in which lighting conditions will it show which kind of flare more dominantly and by how much.

 

The whole 50/2 AA discussion about flare indeed showed very clearly that when a promise was made by a respectable company to deliver the best 50mm there is and the wide customer base does not expect any less than perfection based on the price to pay that our expectations can sometimes go a bit over board ;-)

 

Flare is there - we can only work around it or accept, embrace and fit it into our vision of a final image. There is not necessarily something bad about flare.

 

portrait - construction worker by Dirk Steffen, on Flickr

 

construction site by Dirk Steffen, on Flickr

 

[lct]

There is indeed a bit of veiling flare on the hair of Enrique's model but all lenses do flare more or less when there are strong light sources outside the frame. As far as 90mm lenses are concerned my 90/2 apo is one of the least flare prone lens compared to my 90/2 v3, 90/2.8 v1, 90/2.8 v2, "thin" T-E 90/2.8, 90/4 v1 and 90/4 macro. It is just beaten by my M-Rokkor 90/4 from this standpoint. The little built-in hoods of current Leica lenses are nice but almost useless to avoid that. Earlier built-in hoods (M 90/2 v1 & v2, R 90/2 pre-apo) were more efficient but lenses were bulkier as well.

[dem331]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You are certainly right, lct, regarding the tele-elmarit, I do not have experience with the other 90mms.  In any case I think I am a little bit guilty, as Dirk says,  of expecting the 90mm AA to be perfect, and always surprised to get flare when the sun nowhere near the frame. 

[lct]

My "thin" Tele-Elmarit is probably my worst 90 as far as flare is concerned but what a great little lens otherwise. Shooting against the light is more difficult generally but can be most rewarding for photogs knowing well their gear. 

[pippy]

Interesting to read that you have problems with your 'thin' T-E 90, lct.

 

I've never had flare problems with my own example - but it's not exactly my most-used lens so perhaps I just haven't shot in the 'wrong' conditions yet...

Do you use the original-style 11250 'rubber-ring' hood with it, may I ask?

 

I elect to use the ubiquitous 12585 on mine. It's not as well-matched for it's primary purpose as the 11250 - being slightly shorter and having a wider front aperture as the bespoke hood - but arguably the solid hood offers better protection.

 

As far as the 'veiling flare' goes...

IMX the phenomenon is much more prevalent when shooting wide-open than when the lens is closed-down by even by as little as one stop. I've tested a handful of different lenses where I've deliberately introduced quite marked veiling flare and usually by the time is down two stops from maximum the 'problem' has all but disappeared.

 

Pip.

[dem331]

I use the rubber hood on the tele-elmarit.  I also have a couple of 12575s that I may try out, but for me the hassle of reversing them takes away from the usefulness of having such a small lens always ready. I will try stopping down to compare flare.

[edwardkaraa]

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.

 

FUJ03326_c1si-after_web.jpg

 

FUJ03325_c1si-after_web.jpg

I certainly agree with that. My ZM lenses are flare proof, so I never use the hoods, at the exception of the sonnar 85, which tends to flare but in a nice way that I like, so I don't use the hood either

[james.liam]

 

 

I certainly agree with that. My ZM lenses are flare proof, so I never use the hoods, at the exception of the sonnar 85, which tends to flare but in a nice way that I like, so I don't use the hood either

 

Even the 1,4/35 with its large front element?

 

It's not at all recessed into the housing Please don't tell us you go 'commando' without a protective filter either...  

IIRC, you had a 35C Biogon at one time, an optic reputed to be virtually flare-free. If true, I can see that one left sans hood.

[lct]

I've bought my "thin" Tele-Elmarit in the eighties and it has been in my travel bags with different hoods (rubber 11250 & 12517, metal 12575, rubber Heliopan) for 20+ years since then. Shooting against the light has always been a no no for me but otherwise it is a great lens indeed. Not sure if my Elmarit 90/2.8 v2 is sharper but it is less flare prone fortunately. It is significantly bulkier though. Now my travel 90 has become the 90/4 macro but i do miss f/2.8 sometimes. Never tried 90/2.5 nor 90/2.4 Summarits so far so i don't know how they behave re flare. 

[adan]

I don't bother with hoods on most wide-angles. If they are shallow enough not to get into the picture, they usually only add flare protection in 5% of possible lighting situations, or are huge. To some extent, that applies to ALL hoods. If they do not shade ALL of the front element from the light (without getting in the picture), some flare can sneak through anyway.

 

If a lens has a built-in hood (usually vestigial in length) - I use it for whatever slight benefit it may add.

 

If you seriously want to eliminate any possibility of flare, you need a hood exactly tuned, in shape and length, to the view of the lens (and adjustable, since the lens view changes slightly with focused distance). And who wants to use/carry one of these on a Leica? http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TjfH-147243684.jpg

 

The 90 TE flare really needs a hood as above (when the light is problematic), cropping exactly and completely to the field of view. Kinda like the one built into the Canon EF 20-35 (behind the front element): http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF2035mmf3545USM/EF2035mmf3545USM_HbrianB.jpg

 

Tried to build my own once, by black-taping off the front of the standard round 12575 hood to a rectangular opening - they always fell apart within days. Uncropped, the regular hood doesn't help the most troublesome (just outside the frame) flare sources anyway.

 

On the tiny 35 f/2, I use its equally tiny hood for the "finger in frame" reason more than anything else. It still flares like crazy sometimes, from light sources INSIDE the picture (as in menos' pix above, or enrique's flare from the corner of bright sky), which no hood can help (but careful use of barn roofs or trees or whatever, can.)

 

Bottom line, I bought Leicas for their small size - blimping them up with often only marginally-useful hoods just runs contrary to the whole idea.

[Herr Barnack]

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

 

all the best..

 

What Davis said. 

 

There are curious exceptions to that rule of thumb, though.  I have seen a lot of photos of Magnum photographers shooting without a lens hood, which I always found to be very odd, given their level of commitment to photography.

 

There are very few scenarios where I would not use a lens hood and they all pretty much revolve around a situation where I am shooting indoors in subdued light with no sources of directional lighting, such as in a Buddhist temple or other similar environment.  Even then, I put the lens hood on the lens.  I see no reason not to; it's just what you do if you are serious about image quality.

 

Some lens hoods do cause some viewfinder blockage but there are ways to work around that.  I have never been one to get my nether regions chapped over viewfinder blockage.

[edwardkaraa]

Even the 1,4/35 with its large front element?

 

It's not at all recessed into the housing Please don't tell us you go 'commando' without a protective filter either...

IIRC, you had a 35C Biogon at one time, an optic reputed to be virtually flare-free. If true, I can see that one left sans hood.

All my lenses have a B+W XS-Pro on. I have owned at least one copy of the 18/4, 25/2.8, 35/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.5, 50/2, 85/4, 85/2, and the only one that flares is the sonnar The rest are amazingly flareless.

[pico]

[...]

If you seriously want to eliminate any possibility of flare, you need a hood exactly tuned, in shape and length, to the view of the lens (and adjustable, since the lens view changes slightly with focused distance).

 

With 35mm format I use whatever hood recommended, but as often as a bumper as a shade. I've lost track of how many I've destroyed on my 35mm Summilux V2.

 

For larger formats, when shooting as slow as necessary I do fuss with shading the lens. I'm thinking now of making lens masks as you pointed out in this picture. Why didn't I think of that!?

[IWC Doppel]

My Leica 18mm refused to flare whatever I tried, with built in shade it was always on in any case. I also try to avoid looking at the sun or have it cutting across me as I shoot.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

For larger formats, when shooting as slow as necessary I do fuss with shading the lens. I'm thinking now of making lens masks as you pointed out in this picture. Why didn't I think of that!?

 

Apologies for going a bit off-topic for a moment, but...

Back in my Sinar days I had one of these permanently fixed on the front-rail;

 

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!

 

Magnificent tool. Wish I still had it to use with the DSLRs in the studio. Nowadays I always seem to be flagging-off light with barn-doors clipped on stands and the stands don't half get in the way...

 

Pip.

 

EDIT : It's called a Sinar Bellows Hood Mask 2, if anyone wanted to know....

[uhoh7]

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

 

all the best..

LOL Sweeping generalization with numerous exceptions, but I use those hoods mostly too