Lens hoods advice

[MWitmann]

Hi,

just recived my first two lens setup so i was wondering about the possibility to buy 2 hoods.


Any advice would be great, thank you!



PS- sironar s 135 & nikkor 90 sw

[Sirius Glass]

Check out: http://www.photofilter.com/hoods.htm

[MWitmann]

Sirius, thank you for the reply.

I was looking also at the lee filters/hood system but it seems to be a bit pricey, considering its used price on ebay and the fact that i must also buy an adaptor ring..

[Joanna Carter]

I was looking also at the lee filters/hood system but it seems to be a bit pricey, considering its used price on ebay and the fact that i must also buy an adaptor ring..

Yes, but once you have the Lee system, it will work on all your lenses; all you would need is one adapter per different lens filter screw size.

[MWitmann]

Yes, but once you have the Lee system, it will work on all your lenses; all you would need is one adapter per different lens filter screw size.

Yes, i know that, but regarding the lee system i've considered that i will need an adaptor per lens, and one is (used) between 30-80$.

So in my case i wil have to pay someting like 200/250$ for the hood with two ring adaptors, instead of 40$ for two hoods from photofilters.com.

I'm just trying to find out if the price difference of the Lee system worths...

I intend to use only an ND and a polarizer.

[Joanna Carter]

The big difference between the Lee hoods and the others, is that, with the Lee hoods, you get a compendium hood that can be adjusted to suit the focal length of the lens.

You do realise that anything less than a hood that is, at least, as long as the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference to the contrast of the image?

[Once]

<snip>
You do realise that anything less than a hood that is, at least, as long as the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference to the contrast of the image?

Oh, oh - slow down, please. Where do you have that from? Surely not from an experience. Do you realise it is not correct, neither for the length nor for the difference made?

[Joanna Carter]

Oh, oh - slow down, please. Where do you have that from? Surely not from an experience. Do you realise it is not correct, neither for the length nor for the difference made?

Yes, from personal experience. Even with a Lee Hood, which is only really long enough for a 90mm lens, the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens.

I also attended a masterclass, where the the photographer giving it showed a Sinar setup for studio work, with a second set of bellows used as a "full length" hood for a 210mm lens and the difference in contrast was even visible on the GG screen.

It's all matter of eliminating any extraneous light from outside of the image area. If you've never tried using a proper deep hood, like me, you may not realise just how much difference it can make.

[GPS]

Yes, from personal experience. Even with a Lee Hood, which is only really long enough for a 90mm lens, the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens.

I also attended a masterclass, where the the photographer giving it showed a Sinar setup for studio work, with a second set of bellows used as a "full length" hood for a 210mm lens and the difference in contrast was even visible on the GG screen.

It's all matter of eliminating any extraneous light from outside of the image area. If you've never tried using a proper deep hood, like me, you may not realise just how much difference it can make.

So let’s put the things in some light. First of all, somehow (a strange type error?) you contradict yourself, saying first that anything less than the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference and then going to say that the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens and 90mm length of a lens shade.

Secondly - (to go back to your first incorrect saying) - you don’t need and don’t have lens shades long 600mm or even 1200 mm for lenses of those focal lengths. Not only would it be impractical ad absurdum but unnecessary too. Why? Because the length of the shade has a very small impact after a certain «*optimal*» length. Say, to name an example, you have the Fujinon C 600 lens. If you make a lens shade of 600mm length you eliminate (under certain given conditions, without going into details) 95% of the stray light vertically on 4x5 film format. If you make the lens shade long 400mm you get the percentage down to 92%. If you make the lens shade long 200mm you get the percentage down to 83%. You see that the huge difference in the length of the shade makes just a small effect on the percentage of the offending light getting on the film. But - even 60 % (or 50% ) of the eliminated stray light makes a very important difference (clearly visible) on the picture. Usually, the «*optimal*» length after which making the shade longer is not practically important and viable is about 70%. After that, you add an unwieldy length to the shade with a small improvement in the optical performance.
So much for an example.

By now you probably understood that me too I know about lens shade construction something... Regards, GPS

[Bob Salomon]

So let’s put the things in some light. First of all, somehow (a strange type error?) you contradict yourself, saying first that anything less than the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference and then going to say that the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens and 90mm length of a lens shade.

Secondly - (to go back to your first incorrect saying) - you don’t need and don’t have lens shades long 600mm or even 1200 mm for lenses of those focal lengths. Not only would it be impractical ad absurdum but unnecessary too. Why? Because the length of the shade has a very small impact after a certain «*optimal*» length. Say, to name an example, you have the Fujinon C 600 lens. If you make a lens shade of 600mm length you eliminate (under certain given conditions, without going into details) 95% of the stray light vertically on 4x5 film format. If you make the lens shade long 400mm you get the percentage down to 92%. If you make the lens shade long 200mm you get the percentage down to 83%. You see that the huge difference in the length of the shade makes just a small effect on the percentage of the offending light getting on the film. But - even 60 % (or 50% ) of the eliminated stray light makes a very important difference (clearly visible) on the picture. Usually, the «*optimal*» length after which making the shade longer is not practically important and viable is about 70%. After that, you add an unwieldy length to the shade with a small improvement in the optical performance.
So much for an example.

By now you probably understood that me too I know about lens shade construction something... Regards, GPS

That is why some manufacturers include or offer cropping masks for the front of the shade so you don't need to have a bellows equal in length to the camera bellows.