Lens hood, necessary?

[per_pettersen]

<p>Soon I'm bringing my Leica M6 with a Summicron 35mm lens on vacation in the sun. Should I buy a lens hood; is it necessary?<br>

If yes, where can I get a cheap one. (I'd like a genuine Leica hood).</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>"Cheap" and "genuine Leica" are words seldom found in the same sentence :) A lens hood never hurts, it protects from damage as well as lens flare. Whenever I need a 39 mm lens hood, I buy one on e-bay from Hong Kong or India for about £4.</p>

[richard_g]

<p>Flare is probably a significant enough concern on a holiday in the sun with a pre-aspheric Summicron that I would have one.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Agree with Davidand Richard. Let me know if you have a pre-aspheric Summicron with the a little notch on the front to accept a lens hood. I have an original one in good condition but which was repainted (exterior) a charcoal black colour and which was previously offered inexpensively on PNet. </p>

[roger_michel]

<p>you only realize how necessary a good hood is once you start using one and make comparisons with your negs. for outdoor daylight shooting, you will be amazed at the difference in contrast performance.</p>

[john_lawrence4]

<p>A lens hood greatly improves any picture and also has the additional benefit of providing some protection for the lens. A win / win situation.<br>

John</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Hood for type 4 Summicron 35mm.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Sunlight or overcast or indoors, there is no photograph which cannot be improved with the use of a lens hood. Do believe Roger Michel.<br>

For those who find it necessary to use "protective" filters, not using a hood is close to suicidal.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Talking clintonesquely here: what does "necessary" mean to you? In relation to your pics, maybe? Do you know?</p>

<p>That is what will guide you to an answer to your question.</p>

<p>Since I do not know what else other than a camera and possibly a lens or pinhole are necessary to take pics, but for unexposed film or working sensor and a charged battery, I can wholeheartedly say: a hood is not necessary to take pictures, even on a sunny beach.</p>

<p>Enjoy your hoodless pics (if that is what you want to get)!</p>

<p>The results may not please you, nor might they if taken hoodless from a tripod on a rainy night, but what do you mean by necessary? How good do you want your pics to be?</p>

<p>Are hoods just money sinks and what is their purpose, if any? A working camera with lens, film or sensor and battery etc will always give you a picture, right. How have your pics been so far without a hood? Without a hood in the sun? Maybe your combination off Leica and Summi... lens does not need a hood. Only you can tell from your expectations and experience. </p>

<p>Good luck with buying hoods for all your lenses. And enjoy the nicer, much nicer pictures that will occasionally just pop up then where previously those shots were washed out. But if you want that washed out look, save your expences.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I personally believe a len hoods improves image quality under any lighting conditions. The following is my perspective expressed a few years ago regarding this subject when it came up on the Nikon forum:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I always use a lens hood, not necessarily for protection, but to prevent image degradation from extraneous light. You don't necessarily have to have an extraneous point light source glaring directly into your lens to adversely affect image contrast. As an assignment while attending Brooks Institute, I did some extensive testing of different lenses, for various formats, both coated and uncoated for the effects of using or not using a lens shade. After shooting a Kodak gray scale with a standard two light, 45 degree angle copy setup, I compared the resultant black and white negatives using a densitometer to measure contrast differences. Contrast loss was surprisingly significant in the negatives exposed without a lens shade compared to those negatives exposed with a lens shade. Of course this was back in 1970 and I know lens coatings have improved, but I'm a creature of habit so I still always use a lens shade.<br>

As far as using a lens shade for lens protection, I have mixed feelings. Nikon lens build quality is not what it used to be. Consumer lenses employing a screw-in metal hood might sustain more damage from an impact because the lens shade is actually more robust than the lens itself and impact force could transfer to the weakest lens component causing breakage there. A screw-on rubber shade might be preferable, as it would perhaps more likely absorb impact force coming from the side or the front. The plastic clip-on lens shades are probably not very protective, but at least might possibly break away from a side impact before causing too much damage to the flimsy plastic lens tubes of consumer lenses. I don't think the plastic clip-on type lens shade would protect internal lens components from frontal impact due to the delicate build construction of these lenses which employ tape in some instances to hold critical elements in place.<br>

I would avoid using the screw-in metal lens shades for all but the better built Nikon professional lenses or the older Nikon lenses made with metal lens tubes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a spare Leica 12585H clip-on lens hood with press-on lens cap which should fit your 35mm Summicron, though I'm not sure whether you can reverse mount it on a 35mm lens. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It says on the side of the hood that it will fit a "1:2/35"</p>

<p>Cosmetically, it is well used, and just as Arthur did, I have repainted it, but the hood is perfectly functional. You are welcome to have it if you think it will fit, Per. Just email your address to me if you are interested.</p>

<div></div>

[rgerraty]

I dropped from the piano stool to the wooden floor my M5 and Zeiss C Sonnar. It landed face down. The hood is

aluminum and has a spring fit bayonet attachment to the steel hood mount on the lens. The hood was bent but the

camera and lens are fine. I bought another hood.

[curt wiler]

<p>Necessary? Definitely not. The camera will work without it.<br /> Useful to produce better images? Definitely yes. Makes the camera/lens investment worthwhile.<br /> Useful to protect the lens. Definitely yes.<br /> Would I leave home without it? No.</p>

[ray .]

I usually use a hood, but I'd like to see a comparison with and without while shooting outside of 240 degrees

of the sun or light source, or in soft overcast. Not saying there isn't a difference, but if there is a discernible one I'd like to see some examples.

[dhbebb]

<p><<I usually use a hood, but I'd like to see a comparison with and without while shooting outside of 240 degrees of the sun or light source, or in soft overcast. Not saying there isn't a difference, but if there is a discernible one I'd like to see some examples.>><br>

My highly unscientific reply based on use of a variety of 50 mm Summicrons, not 35, is that even in its latest version, this lens has a tendency to flare most when a bright light (e.g. the sun) is just outside the picture area. This is of course exactly the situation where a lens hood helps most.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>"...but if there is a discernible [difference] I'd like to see some examples."<br>

You can <em>make your own</em> examples. Doing things for oneself is the best way. Take three or thirteen pictures with a hood and an equal number -- of the same subjects at the same time -- without a hood. Different circumstances, different lighting.<br>

But then someone might pop up and ask you what is "necessary" and what is "good"; and imply that all photographers make lousy pictures.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Of course you don't need a hood. The guys that are really good at math only designed it to sell you 76 cents of injected molded plastic to get you to buy it for whatever they charge for it.</p>

<p>Sort of like lens cleaning cloth, just use your tie and some spittle.</p>

[per_pettersen]

<p>Thanks for your answers! There will be a hood in my mail box very soon!</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>Michael D, I am not sure you are serious but a necktie is good for removing lens coatings.<br>

I would rather take pictures with no trousers than with no lens hood. Because I would be flooded with offers of lens hoods.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>Michael D, I am not sure you are serious but a necktie is good for removing lens coatings.<br>

I would rather take pictures with no trousers than with no lens hood. Because I would be flooded with offers of lens hoods.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>james, of course I wasn't serious, I meant to say napkin.</p>

<p>The Internet isn't a very good place to express sarcasm, even less satire. Good one, thanks!</p>

[kivis]

<p>I read this Q&A somewhere:</p>

<h2><a href="http://www.formspring.me/Riccis/q/154422745537477002">"hood on or off ? is it much diff. to use it or not use it ? , and do you use filter to protect your lens ?</a></h2>

<p>I never use filters and rarely pull out the hood... I don't know what gear you shoot with but the new Leica lenses I use are very resistant to flare and the coatings are so good that you can run your nail through the front element and not scratch it."</p>