lens shades

[blue_max]

I have been lurking on this forum and now registered as I am always here! Thanks to you people, I have invested in a second hand 85mm 1.8 canon lens for my digital camera, which I should get quite soon.

The question I have, is about the lens shade – do I really need one? and if I do (probably) where can I get it in the uk. I have had a look around and there's not much info.

Any information gratefully received.

Cheers

Graham

[tim]

Lens shade? You mean a lens hood? Yes, I think you need one, for two reasons:
1) It increases contrast of your pictures, especially when there's lots of stray light around.
2) It helps protect the front element of the lens in case you drop it.

[DaveG]

A lens shade is a very good idea and if you get really serious about one you can start to have a look at the bellows versions. The can be extended until they are almost vignetting and that will give you the best protection against flare. The ones that come with the lens are bettter than nothing so I use one on all of my lenses, but a bellows shade is really better.

[dhbailey]

The bellows hood isn't as good at offering lens protection, though, because it will collapse on contact, leaving the front element of the lens to absorb the impact.

It's a trade-off. If you search the on-line merchants and find a listing for the lens you are buying, you will also most likely find the corresponding hood listed.

[Monito]

Welcome to the Forums, blue_max (first post).

Yes, a lens shade (hood) should be used whenever possible, even when you don't think you need one.

Even an improvised one (if carefully improvised and tested) will be better than none. Also important is your camera sensor size. The standard lens hoods are designed for 35mm film cameras or full frame cameras. If your camera is a 20D or Digital Rebel 300D or 350D you can use a deeper lens shade because the angle of view will be narrower.

[DaveG]

The bellows hood isn't as good at offering lens protection, though, because it will collapse on contact, leaving the front element of the lens to absorb the impact.

It's a trade-off. If you search the on-line merchants and find a listing for the lens you are buying, you will also most likely find the corresponding hood listed.

A hood isn't going to provid much if any protection anyway. The lens has to land in just the right way and the hood has to not shear or fall off. A bellows shade won't be any better as a protector, but it's much better as a shade.

[ShutteringFocus]

A hood isn't going to provid much if any protection anyway. The lens has to land in just the right way and the hood has to not shear or fall off. A bellows shade won't be any better as a protector, but it's much better as a shade.


True, but still...if my lens is going to fall...I'll take all the protection I can get.

[DaveG]

True, but still...if my lens is going to fall...I'll take all the protection I can get.


When you take the camera out of your bag you're taking a chance. I protect my gear against things like sand and objects hitting the front element by using UV filters. I use lens hoods to protect the image against flare.

Back in my Nikon days any lens hood that I used would have come off, like the clip on reversing hoods on the 105mm lens; or it would have transmitted the shock to the camera as in the screw on hoods an 85mm f1.8. With Canon the bayonet "plastic material" hood will still fall off and I still wonder how much damage assorption they would provide.

It's fine to say that you want protection but the odds of dropping a lens in exactly the right way is very small. And how often do you drop your gear? One lens every ten years? Getting flare is a very real possibility and we are immediately into a risk/reward situation. I'm not willing to take the risk of potential damage to my front element by NOT using a UV filter. I am willing to take the risk of using a bellows lens shade to properly shade a back lit wedding group portrait, even if it means that it provides less "protection" for the lens, because the image requires it. And to be truthful I've never considered a lens hood a protective device.

I guess if I dropped a lens every week or so I'd have to re-think this position. On the other hand if I dropped them that often I'd probably should re-think my career choice.

[Phil V]

The hood you need is the ET-65/3, and can be ordered from your local dealer, you may also be able to find one second hand.:)

Personally I use a hood always, and a filter mostly (never for paid jobs - since I ruined some pictures with flare).:o

[blue_max]

Thanks all for your help.
Will the ET-65/2 fit as well or instead, do you know. And what is the difference?

I bought the lens second hand so don't want a new hood to put it to shame!

I don't think I'll bother with a filter though – I've got plenty of Jif and if it cleans baths without scratching...





... only joking :lol:

[jterlecki]

Phil V really hit it on the head about using a lens shade and the hazards of a "protective" filter. In over 40 years of photography, I've never dropped a lens. I've banged a few around and the bayonet lens shades that Canon has available for my lenses prevented any and all damage to the front element as well as the lens barrel. As far as a filter is concerned, I never use one unless I have a specific reason to do so. That reason is usually for a specific effect like those produced by a ND filter or a polarizer. The only time I put a UV or skylight filter on is if I am out in excessive elements such as rain or very windy conditions with blowing sand and debris. My reasoning is this: if Canon wanted to have a $30 piece of potential glare producing flat glass over their carefully ground, rare earth and metallic coated front elements, they would have put one there. I've never had to dispose of a lens or have the front element recoated because of element damage. Filters will frequently cause flare and sometimes ghosting. This is true even with effect filters however this can be somewhat controlled with the proper lens shade.

This is, of course, a matter of personal opinion. I'm sure others will rebut my views. I suggest you read Bob Snell's article in the March 05 issue of Digital Camera magazine. I agree with everything he says except using a soft rubber lens hood - I don't plan on dribbling my lenses along the ground so bounce protection really doesn't concern me.