Lens hood options

<p>I realize that a compendium-type lens hood is in some ways the 'best' and most flexible answer for a view camera, and I religiously use the manufacturers' dedicated lens hoods on all of my DSLR's lenses, but a compendium hood is another sizable / complicated item to deal with, so I'd like your thoughts on alternatives.</p>

<p>(1) I'm thinking that the problem of vignetting with a regular-type hood is only an issue if (a) you tilt the lensboard and/or (b) you use front rise, fall, or shift and the hood is not wide enough to all for all the lens's coverage. Example: Fuji SW 90mm f/8 rated for 216mm coverage / 100 or 101 degree angle of view. Although <em>on a 4x5</em> (roughly 155mm film diagonal) this is in some sense "equivalent" to a 25mm lens on 35mm film or "full frame", a hood designed for a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera would cause vignetting with almost any front rise. However, you can eliminate this problem by using a hood suitable for about an 18mm lens on a 35mm camera to allow the 90mm to take in and project toward the film (subject to movements) its full field of view. (25.2mm * 154.5mm / 216mm = 18.0mm) Do you agree?</p>

<p>(2) To be able to share filters, I'm thinking I get a set of step-up rings to use the 72mm filters that one of my bigger DSLR lenses uses. If you go lens -> step-up ring -> hood sized for step-up ring (or for filter on step-up ring), you can actually use a hood designed for a somewhat longer lens with that filter ring size. I think this would be fine on, say, the Schneider Symmar-S 135mm f/5.6 with the 49mm filter ring (49 -> 72 is a big step up and this is only a moderately-wide lens with a moderate 190mm image circle), but I'm a bit more concerned with the Fuji SW 90mm f/8 with the 67mm filter ring (67 -> 72 is a much smaller step-up and this is a fairly wide lens with a 216mm image circle). What do you think of this approach?</p>

<p>(3) I tend to think that as long as you check the image carefully on the ground glass with the hood (and any intervening filter) in place, any vignetting will be either (a) obvious or (b) very minor. Do you agree?</p>

<p>Thanks!<br /><br /></p>

#3: If your camera's ground glass has the four corners clipped, you can peer directly through any of the corners, into the diaphragm opening of the lens and clearly see any obstruction in front of the lens that will cause physical vignetting. The normally round

opening formed by the diaphragm will show hoods, filter rings or any other object intruding into the light path; any obstructions in front of the lens that will create physical vignetting will cause the normally round aperture to clearly appear as an ellipse.

 

Peering through the clipped corners is much more effective than simply inspecting the corners of an unclipped ground

glass to check for darkening. And if you do see a physical obstruction when peering through any of the

clipped corners, you can often see it disappear as you close down the diaphragm to your taking aperture.

<p>For many years, I have used the Cokin system on both monorail and field 4x5 cameras and with lenses as wide as 90mm with fairly extreme movements. The square filters offer no problems since (1) they have no rims, and (2) they can be slid up or down in their holders to cover any part of the field that is exposed by the rise or fall. A Poralizer does have to be watched carefully since it is circular and has a metal rim, but it usually needs a fair amount of movement (rise) before that rim appears in the image.</p>

<p><br />The dedicated hood and filter holder can be a problem, but I have one holder from which I removed the front slot to avoid any vignetting there and often do without the hood and use a dark slide to shield the lens instead.</p>

<p>I believe that the Lee system may have a compendium style hood that attaches to their filter holder, but I know nothing about how it compresses in terms of whether you can angle it toward any specific direction or if it just pulls in or out.</p>

 

<p>A true compendium has movements that let you duplicate the movements that your camera has. It is not simply a bellows that compresses and extends. Many compendiums also have masking bands so you can reduce the size of the opening to eliminate any light rays that are not used to form the image to reach the film plane. A true compendium will have the same amount of bellows as the camera and the extension of the compendium would be the same as the camera's extension. Since that is only really usable in a studio manufacturers make shorter bellows compendiums with masking bands.<br>

As for original lenshoods from lens manufacturers many of those are not really effective with zoom lenses. If your hood on a zoom is effective at the longest focal length of the lens it is will vignette at the widest setting. If it is effective at the widest focal length it is totally ineffective at the longer focal lengths. That is why a bellows hood or an adjustable length rubber hood on non view cameras would be the best choice.</p>

<p>+1 for the compendium--on my monorail Toyos, I don't even notice that it is there until I extend it, and it flips up nicely to allow access to the f/stops and shutter speeds. Sergio is right that you can see through the lens if there is an obstruction, but make sure that you stop down the lens to make sure that nothing is in the way at the corners.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your responses. However, I think I must have been unclear. I don't doubt for a moment that a compendium hood is the best / most flexible. But in some cases, it's just a non-starter. My questions are whether you think my proposed alternative (step-up rings plus fixed hood(s)) is reasonably good, within its limitations; whether I have accurately analyzed the scope of those limitations; and what (if anything) you'd suggest as a better alternative with about the same size, complexity, and cost. Thanks.</p>

<p>By the way, I realize that the manufacturer's hood on a zoom is necessarily cut for the wide end, and is therefore suboptimal for the long end. Same goes with using a full-frame lens on a cropped-sensor camera. But again, for 90% of the time, IMO there does not appear to be a better alternative, and the supplied hood certainly seems better than no hood (at least until you get into the ultra-wide-angle zooms).</p>

 

<p>Simple answer. On a view camera. NO. On a press camera. YES. Take a look at a Kaiser 3 in 1 hood if you want a better option for many zoom lenses. Or a Heliopan 2 in 1 rubber hood.</p>