Hi all. Hope you guys had a wonderful Christmas. I just want ti know how many M users here routinely use the lens hood on their lenses. I am refering specifically to the clip-on type, NOT the build-in entendable ones. Do you fine noticeable improvements in your pics when the hood is used? The reason I ask is that these hoods are quite inconvenient to use and do block the viewfinder quite a bit. I cannot honestly tell that the pics without hoods are any worse than those with, but then I am very careful about incoming light source angles and take precautions to avoid situations that will cause flare. Any comments will be most appreciated. Also, pls do have a wonderful New Year, too.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), December 29, 2000

Answers

Steven,

I do not know whether lens hoods contribute to picture quality, probably not to any significant degree. Nevertheless, lens hoods are a permanent fixture on both my M2's, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4. If nothing else they protect the glass from any stray flying objects, my accidently bumping into something and fingerprints. For me they do not block the viewfinder at all, I do not even notice them when looking through the viewfinder, maybe it is because of the slots on the hoods which does away with blockage. So I am a lens hood fanatic and use them on all lenses, Leica or Nikon.

I wish you a great '01 and good shooting.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), December 29, 2000.

I too am a hood user. I never did a side by side test to see if there was any contrast difference, but logic says that there would be at certain lighting angles. I use the hoods for protection of the front element from inadvertent finger prints and bumps from other solid objects. I also rely on the hoods when shooting fast, I can place the lenses hood side down in the slots of my bag, and don't have to worry about or fumble with the front caps when changing lenses.

I have the 50mm Summicron, the last before the current model, and the hood's cutouts prevent obstructions in the finder. I think the shape of the hood of my 35mm Summicron is a masterpiece of design, offering the most protection with the least volume. Had Leica stayed with a round hood for this lens it would have been larger, and probably not blocked the light as effectively. The pull out hood on my 90mm lens is not really a convenience problem, it is ready in a half a second, and due to the angle of view, very effective.

Considering the thought that Leica put into the hoods, they are all individually designed specifically for a particular lens, the company know for its Spartan offerings (function over fluff) must think the use of hoods is valid.

Good luck in the New Year.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 29, 2000.

I've noticed less images ruined by flare when using the hoods on the older, non-multicoated lenses, especially the 50 and teles. Since you can't see the flare in a rangefinder like you can in an SLR, I think they are a must. Of course on the newer lenses I always pull out the built in hoods as well. I also noticed the same when using a hood on the old Rollei TLRs.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 29, 2000.

USE THE HOOD!! When there is strong sidelighting (more noticable at some angles than others), light glancing off the lens surface definitely deteriorates the image. I have been working for a number of years on a series of photographs taken with available light in cafe settings. I have the 35 Asph Summicron (large, quite flat front element), with the clip on hood as you mentioned. When presented with a quick grab-shot I sometimes didn't have time to put on the hood and was getting terrible flare on some of the sidelit shots. Now I leave the hood on at all times and have never had the problem.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 29, 2000.

Steven, I use two filter rings on the 35/1.4 asph because I hate the viewfinder occlusion. One ring has the UV filter in place, the other is empty. This seems to work well and is less bulky than the plastic hood. I'm going to test the 24/2.8 for a similar set-up, although it's not so relevant there as you have to use the add-on viewfinder anyway.

As for improvement, I've never noticed it because I never take the filter rings off unless to clean the filter. But then some people will also tell you that using a filter degrades your image so much that you might as well be using an instamatic anyway...

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), December 30, 2000.

Steve, I always use a hood on my M2 with Rigid 50/2. I don't notice it in my field of view any more, but when others look through th viewfinder they often comment on it (and some wonder if it will show up on the photo :).

Can't say I have ever done flare tests to confirm the flare reduction, because a hood is a freebee. It can not under any circumstances reduce image quality, it helps keep fingers off the glass, and it may sometimes reduce flare.

The biggest reason I always have it fitted is that the M2 lacks the lens release button collar, I have often found that I have accidentally released it, and it is no longer locked into the Bayonet. I hope that the day the lens falls off, it falls on the hood (and something soft).

-- Mark Wrathall (Wrathall@aon.at), December 30, 2000.

Yes, I would say that some of my photos were saved using the hood because it helped unwanted light (flare) ruin the negatives. Try pointing your camera (SLR) at a subject against the light. Now shade the lens with your hand to see if you notice any difference. If unshaded, some light that you may not even see will get into the lens and bounce inside it to make your slides or negatives have that milky look to it (less contrast). I'd say, use it as much as you can and you get an added bonus of getting extra protection for your lens.

-- Ron Gregorio (gregorio@ksc.th.com), December 30, 2000.

Thanks for the response. Seems like the hoods are used more frequently than I thought. One comment got me thinking. Does the use of stacked filter rings as hood, as suggested by Rod, cause vignetting, especially on a 35 or 28? Can you confirm on this? By the way, the metal clip-on hoods with cut-outs that I have are not freebees, and since I have already paid for it, I suppose I might as well use it:) Thanks for any further comments.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), December 30, 2000.

Dear Steven; I went to the same question time ago, and to confirm the need of a shade specialy in older lenses; I put the lens in any reflex body to be able to see throuh it,you will see it focused very near, but is just to be able to make a judgement , and then check the diference with and without the shade with a side ligth like a lamp,lens wide open, better if you do it in a dark room with a side lamp to see flare.Good look. My opinion; use the shade. R. Watson

-- Robert Watson (mawago@prodigy.net.mx), December 30, 2000.

Steve,

I have two lenses that I use routinely (35/2 and 75/1.4) and I always use the hoods. Especially on the 35 as I find flare to be more of a problem with wide-angle lenses in general. Besides, the hood on the 35 Summicron is really quite un-obtrusive and I detest filters so it actually protects the lens from the odd bump'n scratch.

Just my take but if your paying THAT much money for Leica glass then why introduce another airspace with a planar filter?

Regards,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 30, 2000.

""Does the use of stacked filter rings as hood, as suggested by Rod, cause vignetting, especially on a 35 or 28? Can you confirm on this? ""

No vignetting for the 35 up. I'm stacking two B+W filter rings, which are quite deep. For the 24, which is why I'm "testing" the set up, it probably won't work!

Rob (not Rod).

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), January 01, 2001.

Shooting without a lenshood feels as uncomfortable to me as going downtown without my pants on (not that I've tried the latter). In fact, the availability of a hood is a deciding factor in whether I'll buy a used Leica lens.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 03, 2001.