I hope this has not been raised too often in the past and I apologise if it has. I was in one of the Leica dealers a couple of days ago checking out the new summicron-M 28/f2 ASPH, what a sweet lens; "ULTRA COMPACT high performance lens" just as it was described in Leica's sexy brochure. But when I saw the hood that came with it, I was surprised and dissappointed at the same time. It was huge in comparison to the lens itself. The hood protruded into the VF just like the Summilux 35/f1.4 ASPH's hood. Now my question is, is it that critical to use a lens hood all the time? Because with such a small compact lens like the 28/2 the hood just negates its compactness. The dealer said he doesn't bother with hoods and just makes sure he doesnt shoot directly into the sun. Now is he spouting a lot of horse, or is there some truth to it. What a pity, these hoods are so big. I mean I dont mide so much the hood on the 35/1.4 lux because the lens isnt that short and compact. But on the 28 its a different story. Does anyone have the same concerns and experience of this. Would like to hear the pros and cons of using/not using the hood. Thanking you in advance,

-- Sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), September 06, 2001

Answers

If he's truly not shooting anywhere into the sun, then I quess he's not spouting a lot of horse. But considering that on a bright day about 30% of possible photos would have flare potential - that's a lot of photographs to pass up. Look at it this way. There are two possible ways to protect a lens from damage (other than the obvious one of being extra careful): 1) a UV/skylight filter which can cause flare and degrade the image (most don't use them) - or 2) a good hood, which not only improves the image in many instances, but also provides quite a bit of protection for the front element. The Leica hoods are so big because (unlike many of the dinky hoods other manufacturers provide) they work very well.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 06, 2001.

Yes, I hate the huge hood on these lenses. They may work well, but they are ridiculous. I think that you could do without and just add a stepping up ring or two to the filter thread instead to provide some shade and then rely on the excellent coating to do the rest. I do this on my 40mm Rokkor and have no problems, I also think DA Harvey uses no hood on his 35mm (if this is of any significance!). I would try this and see if it works.

This approach will work much better if you do not use UV filters. I would be wary of having only a filter on the lens and absolutely no shade of any kind.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.

I'm w/Bob Todrick--use the hood, it's there for a reason. BTW, hoods are just as important for shooting @ night as they are for daylight because streetlights & such can produce a lot of flare. Also, the only picture I've seen of David Allen Harvey @ work is in the "NG Field Guide to Photography" & he has the hood on what appears to be a 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 06, 2001.

While the hood may be large, it provides excellent protection for the lens as well as flare reduction. Well worth using it in my opinion. (The lenshood for my Canon 100/2 lens makes the lens nearly twice the size when mounted on the camera, but I wouldn't consider using it without it due to the excellent flare reduction it provides.)

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 06, 2001.

Recently I've found myself using both the 24/2.8 and the 35/1.4 _with_ a filter and _without_ a hood. yes, it makes me shudder when I think about it, but so far i've noticed no negative effects. Why I'm doing it, I don't really know, but it feels right somehow.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 06, 2001.

Always use hood and remove the UV filter when shooting. The difference (slide film under loupe) is most obvious when you shoot in sunny days.

My Noctilux instruction handbook asks me not to put any filter on during shooting otherwise it will induce flare and reduce contrast.

Do a search on "flare" and "glare" at photo.net and read.

When I am not shooting I remove the hood and put the UV filter on.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

Come to think of it, it's because it's quicker to clean the filter that way.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 09, 2001.

Normally Leica hoods are not so big as that which comes with the 28mm. I like their built-in sliding hoods but don't like the external fit types.

If the sun is at the back you can safely shoot without a hood. If it is coming from the front or side, then there is room for caution. Sometimes I use my hands or a hat to shield the lens ! Anything but to carry the monster hood. No flares so far.

-- Yip (koklok@krdl.org.sg), September 10, 2001.

I bought a second-hand 35 Summaron some time ago and have been using that without a hood and everything seems fine. My current 50 Summicron has the built-in hood and because of the bad design is INSIDE the lens most of the time doing absolutely nothing rather than OUTSIDE protecting against flare - but no problems so far! It's already been said that as long as you don't shoot directly into the sun you should be OK - but remember that use of a hood does not mean that all your shots will be protected from flare!

-- Chris Timotheou (nowayout@talk21.com), December 23, 2001.