The most overlooked accessory

bmattock · 08-17-2004

Dig around in our kit bags, we've got most of what we need at any given time. Camera body for sure, probably more than one. Lenses, film, the essentials. Maybe a flash or two, some filters. Lens cleaning solution and microfiber cloth, for sure. Possibly a brush or blower to keep things clean in dusty or dirty conditions - maybe even a plastic cover or bag to keep things dry in case of downpour. Some of us may schlep around a tripod and the requisite remote shutter release.

Ah, but we're missing something!

Lens hood.

Small, light, cheap, and VERY useful. Especially for those of us who shoot vintage (perhaps uncoated) lenses or classic fixed-lens rangefinders - flare was a problem even with some of the better early coatings, and most of us prefer not to see it on our photos. You can get flare even without aiming your camera anywhere NEAR the sun, especially on a bright day - outdoors, lots of foliage, etc. I've gotten flare while shooting with the sun at my back!

Consider picking up a couple of cheap lens hoods and tossing them in your kit bag. Worth the effort. And then (I'm guilty here too) USE THEM!

Come on, how many of you use lens hoods when you go out shooting? I know, they get in the way, right? But consider it!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

nwcanonman · 08-17-2004

Bill,
To paraphrase the character in "Sierra Madre" - "Lens Hood, Lens hood? I don't need no stink'n lens hood!" LOL.
I know some are addicted to them (Russ), but I've almost never used them. Why? I'm conscious of where the sun is at all the time, so I can step into the shade of a tree, utility pole OR use my ever-present HAT to shade the lens.
I've almost never had any lens flare and when I've experienced it, I actually like the effect it caused.
Too each their own, but everyone does NOT "need" lens hoods.
Right Russ? - LOL.

Wayne R. Scott · 08-17-2004

How right you are Bill!! I use a Lindahl Specialties Bellows lens hood for my serious work. I have adapter rings on my most used lens so I can move bellows to each lens as I use it.

I need to get a lens shade for my 21mm Biogon. Any body have some ideas on what to use?

Wayne

Rich Silfver · 08-17-2004

I've been a good boy Santa. I use a lens hood about 99.99% of the time

RML · 08-17-2004

Since I found out that my J-9 85/2 flares like mad I've been buying a few Heliopan hoods to make a long tele hood. I have yet to put it to the test, though.
I was lucky to find a Voigtlander set of hood and 2 filters in 39mm thread, so I screwed the hood on the J-8.
The Rokkor-M 40/2 already comes with one and I use it all the time.

Before I started shooting RF I never used a hood on my Eos lenses; never even thought about it even as I had very little flare experiences. The Industar lenses and the J-9, however, made the point very clear to me that these lenses could suffer from flare quite a bit.

Brian Sweeney · 08-18-2004

If you can find it on EBay, Walz made a Series VI Vented shade that is perfect for RF cameras. I found a 41mm to Series VI adapter for the Summarit, a 43mm to Series VI for the Nikkors. The same shade works with both.

GeneW · 08-18-2004

A couple of questions here about lens hoods:

1. I recall hearing some 30 yrs ago or so that when shooting without a lens shade even if you didn't get outright flare, you could still pick up a lot of extraneous light that reflected around the lens elements, lowering contrast and clarity. Because of that I've been farily religious about getting shades for all my lenses. Does this principle still apply to modern lenses?

2. What kind of hood do you recommend for a Jupiter 8? I have a Zorki on the way and I know I'll want to put a lens shade on the Jupiter.

Gene

bmattock · 08-18-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by Gene
A couple of questions here about lens hoods:

1. I recall hearing some 30 yrs ago or so that when shooting without a lens shade even if you didn't get outright flare, you could still pick up a lot of extraneous light that reflected around the lens elements, lowering contrast and clarity. Because of that I've been farily religious about getting shades for all my lenses. Does this principle still apply to modern lenses?

2. What kind of hood do you recommend for a Jupiter 8? I have a Zorki on the way and I know I'll want to put a lens shade on the Jupiter.

Gene

Gene,

I believe that's true - that you can pick up flare that lowers contrast EVEN if it doesn't 'look' like traditional lens flare. I also believe it is true that you can get lens flare even when you are not shooting into the sun - in fact, I think it is more likely to get the 'non-standard' type of lens flare then.

When we talk about 'modern lenses', we have to be sure what our terms are. To me, a modern lens is one that has a coating of some sort - and those have been available to one extent or another, for quite a number of decades. But coatings have gotten better over the years, so newer coatings would be better in general terms than older coatings.

Lens coatings do cut down on lens flare. There are also mechanical things that help - for example, some of my older lenses are not flat black inside - even the shiny metal surfaces can cause lens flare. And of course, lens shades or hoods.

In some ways, a lens hood is kind of like using a polarizing filter. Not as drastic, of course. But the idea is that it blocks like from entering the front of the lens from an oblique angle and bouncing around inside the barrel of the lens and between the elements and such. This is the kind of flare that simply lowers contrast without looking like obvious classic flare on your prints or negs.

I am willing to believe that a person who shoots only high-end modern lenses might not suffer from lens flare in a noticeable way unless they shoot right into the sun. But for most of us, especially those of us with vintage cameras / lenses, I believe that a lens hood will help in ways you don't realize until you see the difference with your own eyes.

Yes, you can stand in the shade, or shield your lens with a hand or a helpful bystander or whatever, but that's just from the obvious sources of flare - you might be surprised that flare still creeps in - but again, you might not recognize it as flare unless you see the results of a shot that has none.

My suggestion is this - get a lens hood. Use that shade on some shots, even when you think you don't need it - and take similar shots without the hood. Same scene, same day, same roll of film, same metering. If it doesn't make a difference, well then ok. But I think you might be surprised!

Worst case - having a lens hood on your camera doesn't HURT anything, and it can even help mechanically - if you happen to drop your camera (same reason as the one for using a clear filter always)!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

JohnL · 08-18-2004

Lots of wisdom here but unless I missed it there is one further big win for users of lens hoods - fewer finger marks!
John

jdos2 · 08-18-2004

I've found hoods to increase contrast across all lenses that I own, but they also increase the size of them.

In other words, there's a compromise. I almost alwase use 'em, but I'm aware of which lenses need them more than others. The Jupiter 9 is HORRIBLE without a hood, but good with. My Leica and Contax lenses aren't bad at all without (to be fair, the Elmar 90 could use one, but I don't have one for it, flare is obvious in heavily backlit situations, but often it's not objectionable) as are some of the other Jupiters- the 8, 12, and 13 are all suprisingly good without.

I just like the high contrast look, and the best way to get that is to use a good hood and be aware of light sources (especially speculars) in frame.

Pherdinand · 08-18-2004

Guys, a propos lens hood, what hood could i use on my yashica electro35 GSN? (45mm lens, 55mm filter thread) I already tried with an old canonet28 hood, it's just a tad too small, does not slip on.

bmattock · 08-18-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by Pherdinand
Guys, a propos lens hood, what hood could i use on my yashica electro35 GSN? (45mm lens, 55mm filter thread) I already tried with an old canonet28 hood, it's just a tad too small, does not slip on.

You have to be careful with the GSN because the light sensor is above the lens and to the left of the rangefinder mechanism - it is possible to block it with a traditional 'universal' lens hood.

What you need is a 55mm lens hood that has a hole cut in it from the back to let the light meter 'see out' and measure the light correctly, or one that has a small enough profile so that it does not block the light.

I found this on Karen Nakamura's excellent website - this is a quote from her correspondence:

Quote:

p.s. René Olde Olthof wrote in saying: I read that you were looking for a lenshood for the Yashica GX. A tip from a GSN owner: try an Olympus lenshood for the f1,2/55mm lens. It's a rigid slip over hood with a fastening screw on the side. Fits perfectly well on my GSN. Thanks for the tip, René

Karen Nakamura Photoethnography

Yashica Guy also refers to a factory lens hood - that would be ideal, and I'd guess that the best place to check for that would be on eboy, doing a search for 'yashica' 'electro' and 'lens hood'.

I'm sure you'll come up with something!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Pherdinand · 08-18-2004

You have a good point with the light meter. With the GX and its ATL meter it would be easier. Thanks, Bill, for the tip.

WDG · 08-18-2004

I picked up two different metal hoods on eBay for the GSN, the first is an off-brand (DCE or something), and the second is a Hoya. The Hoya is a bit smaller, just slightly larger than the lens barrel, and fits a 58mm snap-cap. The off-brand might be safer, from a vignetting stand-point, but would take a 64mm snap-cap, if I could find such a thing. So far, I've seen no vignetting with the Hoya, though I'm far from certain I could get away with stacking it on a filter. Anyway, I'm happy with it, so far.

Another point John made, that I think often gets overlooked, is finger-print protection. I've stuck my doggon fumble-fingers in the front of a lens more times than I can count! With a hood, I have to try much harder to smudge the lens, so... less cleaning.

As a rule, I'd prefer a collapsable rubber hood, but nearly all seem to interfere with the VF or RF. The only one I've run across which didn't was the B+W 46E UV/Hood. I have no idea if they made this in any other size than 46mm.

RML · 08-19-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by Gene
2. What kind of hood do you recommend for a Jupiter 8? I have a Zorki on the way and I know I'll want to put a lens shade on the Jupiter.

Gene, I'm using a short 40.5mm hood on my J-8. It's an original Voigtlander hood, which came with two original Voigtlander filtes (UV and skylight). It works well.

Heliopan sells a nice hood in 40.5mm thread. Price at http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/ is 11 UKP.

Scarpia · 08-19-2004

Gene, why don't you try a rubber hood for your Jupiter? Adorama lists a 40.5 rubber hood for $5.95. I use rubber hoods whenever I can and I love them as they fold back when not in use and usually allow the use of a lens cap and camera case without removing them. The standard hoods are not good with wide angle lenses, however.
Kurt M.

GeneW · 08-24-2004

I'm bringing this thread back to life. I'm looking at the second roll of film I ran through my GIII, with several shots towards the sun, and I see quite a bit of flare. This cam NEEDS a hood.

Fortunately, I received a short metal 48mm hood from eBay just today. I'll definitely be using it.

Also, thanks to everyone for the advice on a hood for the Jupiter 8. My biggest problem with buying from Adorama or anywhere in UK is the terrible shipping charge to Canada. I tend only to buy more expensive items this way so the shipping doesn't sting so much. So I'll look for local sources first -- some big camera stores in Toronto and all the pawn shops.

BTW I noticed that the hood blocks part of the rangefinder frame, but it doesn't really bother me.

Gene

bmattock · 08-24-2004

I wish I could convince more people to use a lens hood - not that I always follow my own advice, but still.

I am ALWAYS amazed by the people who swear up and down that they have no need of a lens hood, as their lens does not flare, or they never shoot at the sun, etc, etc.

Yet if they would try just ONE roll where they shoot dupes - one with lens hood, one without, they would see such a difference, you'd never be able to get them out shooting without a hood again.

Why is that so hard for some folks?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

back alley · 08-24-2004

human nature? we all want to be 'a little different'.

jdos2 · 08-24-2004

I have a laughably big hood I got by accident from someone selling it as a hood for a Mamiya "C330." It is actually for a Universal (yay for me, as I had both) but now I use it on my Leica AND Kiev lenses- it's an external mounted hood- with a "screw in" clamp and is probably close to 10cm long. It does a "good job," and only at close focus on the short-rangefinder-base Leica M3 does it block the focusing window. On the Kiev it chops a bit out of the corner of the viewfinder.

It makes a big difference. It's big enough to be past the recommended point of "the same as focal length."

It DOES look silly, but since it helps so, I'm happy with it.

I'd like a longer hood for my J-9 lens, the one I have isn't really long enough, and I'm sure I could increase contrast rather more with something better, but I'll just have to keep looking. Something... Longer rather than wider would be better. The hood I keep on it now is for an unidentified Nikkor (combo cap/hood mispurchased as part of a Nikkor 85mm LTM lens which it didnt' fit, I'm thinking 105mm) and it isn't deep enough for my tastes.

bmattock · 08-24-2004

The problem with using lens hoods is that you don't usually know you have a problem with flare unless it is extremely obvious. Most of us who don't shoot directly into the sun (contre jour) don't get the kind of flare that jumps right out at you - so we assume we have no problem with flare. And without something to compare it to, we won't see it, either. So we insist that we have no problem with flare - or, our lenses don't flare, or we know how to shoot photos and not get flare and so on. We're all convinced that flare is a problem other people get - probably because their lens is inferior, or they just aren't a good photographer, etc.

Again - you'll never know you have a flare problem until you try a shot with a lens hood and without a lens hood on the same photos on the same day on the same roll of film. Once you do that, you see the difference it can make. Until then, nothing will convince you.

People can be so stubborn. "I don't SEE flare in my photos" meaning it must NOT be there. Well, it is. You don't see it because you don't see an identical photo shot WITHOUT flare. In many cases - perhaps even in most - it is there.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

jdos2 · 08-24-2004

I've shot identical shots with and without the hood on my CZJ 50mm f/1.5 and the difference was obvious. It's not horrible for flare, but the pinksh haze just wasn't there in the picture with the hood. That's what sold me.

I walked around with the J-9 for a week trying to find pictures of things I wanted to prove to myself that the lens could be useful at all with a hood. I've decided that it is good with the hood, horrible nearly to the point of being unusable without one, particularly wide open.

bmattock · 08-24-2004

Bingo! My point exactly! I feel strongly that if everyone at least TRIED identical shots with and without a lens hood, they'd most likely see a difference too.

Amazing that people will spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on the very best, most highly-rated lenses, and then choose not to use a lens hood because they "don't have a problem with lens flare."

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Quote:

Originally posted by jdos2
I've shot identical shots with and without the hood on my CZJ 50mm f/1.5 and the difference was obvious. It's not horrible for flare, but the pinksh haze just wasn't there in the picture with the hood. That's what sold me.

I walked around with the J-9 for a week trying to find pictures of things I wanted to prove to myself that the lens could be useful at all with a hood. I've decided that it is good with the hood, horrible nearly to the point of being unusable without one, particularly wide open.

RML · 08-24-2004

JD, that's exactly my experience with the 85/2. When I first got it I shot some shots with it, and I was soooo disappointed with it. The flare was there in EVERY single shot.

I just finished the roll that I loaded int he Bessa R and shot with the 85/2. I'll try to have it developed tomorrow but I guess it'll be Saturday before I can see the results. I'm expecting no flare but perhaps the hood might have given some problem being a tube instead of a funnel shape.

jdos2 · 08-24-2004

Interestingly enough, the hood for the Contax G 90mm is not much larger (wider) than the lens itself. The field of view of the longer lenses allows one to get away with that, I bet.

It was a great day when I figured out that the 75mm hood for the Mamiya Universal fits the 50mm just fine, is square and aluminum, and best- is longer than the 50mm hood, providing better protection...

Nice when things work out like that.