caloosajo Posted January 30, 2020 Share #1 Posted January 30, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi all, I have a 28mm Elmarit ASPH v2 that I love on both my M10 and MP 0.72. When I first got it last year, it lived on my film M along with its rectangular lens hood. On the first few rolls, there was quite marked and harsh vertical vignetting especially as golden hour approached with the sun coming from the side, but still shooting stopped down to at least f/4-5.6. I took the lens hood off, which resolved the issue. I am unequivocally an Average Joe, but is this issue merely teaching me to be more selective/aware of the light? The lens hood just looks cool, and I see folks like Elliott Erwitt, Andre Wagner, and Peter Turnley using this square hood without issue on this lens and the 35mm Summicron, and sometimes I just want to pretend to be like them. Simple answer is just put the lens hood away, but would appreciate any thoughts. Thanks. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305917-28mm-elmarit-asph-v2-lens-hood-vignette/?do=findComment&comment=3902838'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 Hi caloosajo, Take a look here 28mm Elmarit ASPH v2 lens hood vignette. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted January 30, 2020 Share #2 Posted January 30, 2020 The Elmarit-M 28/2.8 asph v2 has a built-in metal hood. I guess yours is a v1 with a detachable rectangular plastic hood (pic), right? If so i've never got the problem you're describing so far but i have no experience with M10 nor MP. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305917-28mm-elmarit-asph-v2-lens-hood-vignette/?do=findComment&comment=3902873'>More sharing options...
caloosajo Posted January 30, 2020 Author Share #3 Posted January 30, 2020 V2 of ASPH has a detachable screw-in rectangular lens hood, as opposed to V1’s clip-on hood shown in your pic. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 30, 2020 Share #4 Posted January 30, 2020 That "event" you picture (strip across the top of the picture) is not caused by the lens hood. Or rather, it is caused by the sun being somewhere the lens hood can't help you (too close to the picture edge - and being projected on the floor of the camera chamber). Light from sun just outside the picture area falls on the camera floor - causes reflected flare patch on sensor/film - with darker stripe where shutter ledge protects a thin strip of sensor. I now keep this image saved, because I have to pull it out twice a year or so to explain this. BTW happens with film Leicas as well, sometimes. But the digital Ms have higher floors, to cram in the electronics, so they are even more likely to do this. 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! 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305917-28mm-elmarit-asph-v2-lens-hood-vignette/?do=findComment&comment=3902892'>More sharing options...
caloosajo Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share #5 Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, adan said: That "event" you picture (strip across the top of the picture) is not caused by the lens hood. Or rather, it is caused by the sun being somewhere the lens hood can't help you (too close to the picture edge - and being projected on the floor of the camera chamber). Light from sun just outside the picture area falls on the camera floor - causes reflected flare patch on sensor/film - with darker stripe where shutter ledge protects a thin strip of sensor. I now keep this image saved, because I have to pull it out twice a year or so to explain this. BTW happens with film Leicas as well, sometimes. But the digital Ms have higher floors, to cram in the electronics, so they are even more likely to do this. 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! Thanks for the reply and the helpful diagram. The sample image I posted was actually on Portra 400 with my old M6, and haven’t used the hood when on my M10. In any case, will just throw the hood back on and not sweat it too much. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted January 31, 2020 Share #6 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Some examples in this thread, link ... Andy explanations are very clear. I have so many examples with this kind of "flare" in contre-jour situations. Edited January 31, 2020 by a.noctilux 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Nordvik Posted February 1, 2020 Share #7 Posted February 1, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) I found this picture. It is a scan of a paper copy, not a negativ. M3 + 5cm Summicron. About 1993/1994. Sold the M3 because of "light leak". Hmmm. 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305917-28mm-elmarit-asph-v2-lens-hood-vignette/?do=findComment&comment=3903662'>More sharing options...
musikus Posted February 19, 2020 Share #8 Posted February 19, 2020 Is there really an advantage in using the hood for all-around casual shooting? Unscrewing the hood from the current Elmarit leaves a nicely more compact lens. What would likely be sacrificed by going hoodless? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted February 19, 2020 Share #9 Posted February 19, 2020 Just try without hood for a while, you will see if the hood is only for some casual use or not. Hint, if you don't have predicted rain/snow or water front use, not planned contre-jour light, as me you can do without hood. 1 hour ago, musikus said: Is there really an advantage in using the hood for all-around casual shooting? Unscrewing the hood from the current Elmarit leaves a nicely more compact lens. What would likely be sacrificed by going hoodless? But do have it near to be grabbed and mounted if conditions change 😇. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
musikus Posted February 22, 2020 Share #10 Posted February 22, 2020 Thanks, a.noctilux. Practical advice, room to experiment. What is that wonderful string instrument in your picture? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted February 22, 2020 Share #11 Posted February 22, 2020 Thanks, Musikus I'm not really sure if it's Saw U ຊໍອຸ້ or may it be Saw Duang (laotian traditional instrument) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onasj Posted February 22, 2020 Share #12 Posted February 22, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, adan said: That "event" you picture (strip across the top of the picture) is not caused by the lens hood. Or rather, it is caused by the sun being somewhere the lens hood can't help you (too close to the picture edge - and being projected on the floor of the camera chamber). Light from sun just outside the picture area falls on the camera floor - causes reflected flare patch on sensor/film - with darker stripe where shutter ledge protects a thin strip of sensor. I now keep this image saved, because I have to pull it out twice a year or so to explain this. BTW happens with film Leicas as well, sometimes. But the digital Ms have higher floors, to cram in the electronics, so they are even more likely to do this. 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! Can someone speculate why Leica does not simply install ridges (light traps) on some or all of these internal flat surfaces to minimize this issue? Or is there a reason why this solution wouldn't work (for example, if the light meter precludes this solution)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 22, 2020 Share #13 Posted February 22, 2020 I would think that the positioning of the sensor for the light meter could possibly prevent installation of the proposed light traps; that, or they could cause vignetting. Or perhaps both. If we can come up with this idea, I'm pretty sure Leica's design engineers would have thought of this as a solution and had a sound reason for ruling it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 22, 2020 Share #14 Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, onasj said: Can someone speculate why Leica does not simply install ridges (light traps) on some or all of these internal flat surfaces to minimize this issue? Or is there a reason why this solution wouldn't work (for example, if the light meter precludes this solution)? The film Ms - M6 through MP/M7 (not sure about the unmetered M-A) - DO have a thin sheet-metal baffle, with a keyhole-shaped cutout, around the edges of the "film" chamber. An "internal lens hood" of sorts. And the walls on the sides are curved half-cylinders, to enclose the shutter curtain spools. o)____(o. They tend to scatter light at many angles, rather than directly at the film/sensor. In the FF digital bodies, Leica has crushed in the walls and floor of the chamber to steal as much internal space as possible for the surrounding electronics (as mentioned in my previous post) and still fit them into an "M-sized" body. The side walls are now flat and mirror-like, compared to the side walls of the film cameras. The black coating also seems a bit less matte and rough than in the film cameras - although that could be a trick of the lighting. The "walls have closed in" right to (even slightly past) the edges of the shutter opening, and the "metering floor" has been raised several mms. I have yet to find a 90mm lens that does not flare in this way, on the M10, substantially more than with previous cameras. Because the M10 squeezes things down the most, in order to gain its svelte 3mm-thinner size. 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! Obivously Leica is 1) well aware of the potential for such flare, 2) added a baffle to the metered film bodies to counteract it, and 3) figures that can't be done with the more cramped space in the digitals due to the risk of vignetting with 90s/135s (as Herr Barnack says), or 4) figures "@#%$-it - these are cameras built for 5 years use, not 50! Why spend the money?" Personally, I think Leica should spend a few extra €€€ for blacker matte internal paint: https://www.culturehustleusa.com/products/black-3-0-the-worlds-blackest-black-acrylic-paint-150ml ....and a baffle at least across the bottom, extending above the floor to the level of the shutter opening (the bottom is where a lens will project a high sun), to shade that area. (But in any M, the baffle does have to permit mounting lenses with deeply-extended rear elements or barrels, without interference - see, for example, issues with mounting a 50 DR or some pre-ASPH 35 Summiluxes, on the digital cameras. Thus the keyhole shape, even in the film Ms.) The sides would be trickier, but I think Leica could fit in 1mm overhanging baffles that should not cause vignetting (remember that projected light is a cone). However, at that point, it becomes three pieces (more labor) and each piece still requires a place to screw it to - without puncturing the electronics behind the walls. A baffle in the back of the lenses (as used for 50 years in Micro-Nikkor 55mm macro lenses, and many other marques): https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=504.0 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/363209-k135-f2-5-realigning-rear-baffle.html ....would work - but is not very compatible with the M focusing cams/movements. Edited February 22, 2020 by adan 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Obivously Leica is 1) well aware of the potential for such flare, 2) added a baffle to the metered film bodies to counteract it, and 3) figures that can't be done with the more cramped space in the digitals due to the risk of vignetting with 90s/135s (as Herr Barnack says), or 4) figures "@#%$-it - these are cameras built for 5 years use, not 50! Why spend the money?" Personally, I think Leica should spend a few extra €€€ for blacker matte internal paint: https://www.culturehustleusa.com/products/black-3-0-the-worlds-blackest-black-acrylic-paint-150ml ....and a baffle at least across the bottom, extending above the floor to the level of the shutter opening (the bottom is where a lens will project a high sun), to shade that area. (But in any M, the baffle does have to permit mounting lenses with deeply-extended rear elements or barrels, without interference - see, for example, issues with mounting a 50 DR or some pre-ASPH 35 Summiluxes, on the digital cameras. Thus the keyhole shape, even in the film Ms.) The sides would be trickier, but I think Leica could fit in 1mm overhanging baffles that should not cause vignetting (remember that projected light is a cone). However, at that point, it becomes three pieces (more labor) and each piece still requires a place to screw it to - without puncturing the electronics behind the walls. A baffle in the back of the lenses (as used for 50 years in Micro-Nikkor 55mm macro lenses, and many other marques): https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=504.0 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/363209-k135-f2-5-realigning-rear-baffle.html ....would work - but is not very compatible with the M focusing cams/movements. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305917-28mm-elmarit-asph-v2-lens-hood-vignette/?do=findComment&comment=3917862'>More sharing options...
onasj Posted February 22, 2020 Share #15 Posted February 22, 2020 31 minutes ago, adan said: The film Ms - M6 through MP/M7 (not sure about the unmetered M-A) - DO have a thin sheet-metal baffle, with a keyhole-shaped cutout, around the edges of the "film" chamber. An "internal lens hood" of sorts. And the walls on the sides are curved half-cylinders, to enclose the shutter curtain spools. o)____(o. They tend to scatter light at many angles, rather than directly at the film/sensor. In the FF digital bodies, Leica has crushed in the walls and floor of the chamber to steal as much internal space as possible for the surrounding electronics (as mentioned in my previous post) and still fit them into an "M-sized" body. The side walls are now flat and mirror-like, compared to the side walls of the film cameras. The black coating also seems a bit less matte and rough than in the film cameras - although that could be a trick of the lighting. The "walls have closed in" right to (even slightly past) the edges of the shutter opening, and the "metering floor" has been raised several mms. I have yet to find a 90mm lens that does not flare in this way, on the M10, substantially more than with previous cameras. Because the M10 squeezes things down the most, in order to gain its svelte 3mm-thinner size. 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! Obivously Leica is 1) well aware of the potential for such flare, 2) added a baffle to the metered film bodies to counteract it, and 3) figures that can't be done with the more cramped space in the digitals due to the risk of vignetting with 90s/135s (as Herr Barnack says), or 4) figures "@#%$-it - these are cameras built for 5 years use, not 50! Why spend the money?" Personally, I think Leica should spend a few extra €€€ for blacker matte internal paint: https://www.culturehustleusa.com/products/black-3-0-the-worlds-blackest-black-acrylic-paint-150ml ....and a baffle at least across the bottom, extending above the floor to the level of the shutter opening (the bottom is where a lens will project a high sun), to shade that area. (But in any M, the baffle does have to permit mounting lenses with deeply-extended rear elements or barrels, without interference - see, for example, issues with mounting a 50 DR or some pre-ASPH 35 Summiluxes, on the digital cameras. Thus the keyhole shape, even in the film Ms.) The sides would be trickier, but I think Leica could fit in 1mm overhanging baffles that should not cause vignetting (remember that projected light is a cone). However, at that point, it becomes three pieces (more labor) and each piece still requires a place to screw it to - without puncturing the electronics behind the walls. A baffle in the back of the lenses (as used for 50 years in Micro-Nikkor 55mm macro lenses, and many other marques): https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=504.0 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/363209-k135-f2-5-realigning-rear-baffle.html ....would work - but is not very compatible with the M focusing cams/movements. Adan once again demonstrates why he should be a handsomely compensate part-time engineer for Leica I would like to think that the continued stunning progress in electronics miniaturization would obviate this problem very soon, hopefully in the M11+. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now