File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Lens hoods - do you use them, what benefits do they give and is there any time you wouldn't use one?

Is it worth getting one for each lens?
>> Anonymous
>do you use them

Yes.

>what benefits do they give

Less flare, protection for the front element from bumps, sometimes a better hold depending on the design of the lens and hood.

>and is there any time you wouldn't use one?

When it'd be too obtrusive/bulky or when I just don't feel like it and flare probably wouldn't be a problem.

I.e. rarely.

>Is it worth getting one for each lens?

Yes.
>> Anonymous
They let you take sharper images buy adding extra pixels.
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
i use them only when i deem the lens flare prone. pic related

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A530Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:09:24 14:59:54Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/5.0Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.35 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width546Image Height1003RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> SAGE
they are reccrommended for flash but ive never had a problem
>> Anonymous
Fuck yeah it is, bro. I just got done buying Leica lens hoods at $600 each.
>> Anonymous
I used to, then I got a Lee filter system and couldn't be bothered paying for their bellows hood ($$$) so now I pretty much never use one. Seeing as I mostly shoot landscapes and shit that doesn't move, if I need to I'll shade the lens with my hand/a grey card, but otherwise don't bother and am yet no notice a difference.
>> SAGE
>>278042
look up the cost of a Nikkor 50mm F1.1 hood. its plastic
>> Anonymous
Gotta love those Canon lens hood prices. LAWL
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
$$$
>> Anonymous
lens hoods are garbage for anyone using on-axis flash
>> Anonymous
it doesn't come with your lenses?


/sony fag.
>> Anonymous
/p fags you know you only use it to make your lens look bigger
>> ­
I use the ones that come with my lenses fairly often, but fuck you i'm not paying extra for that shit
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>278122
why would anyone want a big lens if it can be avoided?
>> Anonymous
>>278141
Pro tip: Those tiny Leica lenses, the Noctilux included, achieve their sizes by allowing a fuckton of vignetting. Only the center is ever Fwhatever. The Noctilux lost 3 or 4 stops from the center to the edges. That tiny 90mm F4 must be around F11 by the edges.
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>278144
troll detected. 2/10
noctilux wide open. you do know samples vary right?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeLeica Camera AGCamera ModelM8 Digital CameraCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:07:11 23:25:38Exposure Time1/11 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating320Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height538White BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID000000000000000000000000000023CC
>> Anonymous
>>278146
Is it the Noctilux 1.0? Cause that doesn't match the retarded amounts of it I've seen.

I have read an extensive paper on their lenses (provided by the company itself) which shows that it does in fact vignette for over 2 stops by design. Evident or not, it's how they're made.
>> Anonymous
>>278146
And I'm not trolling; modern, high end lenses have a reason to be fucking huge, and it's not looks.
>> SAGE
>>278149
dear ignorant soul, please continue to read everything by ken rockwell.
its all in how you use it. of course its worse if you focus on something too close. if you work within its capabilities, you soon realize its a very sharp lens that has excellent contrast.
>> Anonymous
>>278146
>>278152
Wait a minute, I just noticed. You fucking idiot, that's not a full frame camera! It's cropping most of the vignetting out.
>> Anonymous
>>278152
>please continue to read everything by ken rockwell.
>an extensive paper on their lenses (provided by the company itself)
>provided by the company itself
>ken rockwell

wut
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>278154
ok heres an example
your large lens, a EF 50 F1 L
cropped for example
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
and the noctilux
>> Anonymous
>>278157
0/10
I was talking about vignetting, not sharpness.
>> SAGE
>>278160
what about the 100mm canon i posted earlier? its same size as the elmar are you claiming it vignettes too or is that now just a leica thing?
>> Anonymous
>>278162
I didn't get to see the 100mm canon you mention now. If it's the same size? Yeah, it just might. Vignetting is a valid compromise in exchange for size, center quality, sharpness, etc. It's lens design.

I never said it was a Leica thing, I'm just saying the miniaturization of lenses doesn't come for free. It's not as simple as "why make it bigger when it can be smaller".
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>278163
heres the canon wide open wow look at that light fall off on film
you seem to fail to realize the only trade off is speed when making it small. hence the elmar is f4 and the canon f3.5

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1200 dpiVertical Resolution1200 dpiImage Created2008:08:27 15:05:27Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1577Image Height1070
>> Anonymous
>>278165
>you seem to fail to realize the only trade off is speed when making it small.

No it's not. Again, it's a design thing. You could have a smaller Noctilux with the same stats, 50mm F1.0, that's a bit slimmer, but you'd get a lot more vignetting. The -center- of the image would still be F1.0. You can make it smaller and lose only peripheral light, while maintaining the center's noted aperture, or you can reduce the lens size to the point where the entry beam radius must be smaller as well, thus reducing the noted speed.

In the case of longer focal lengths (narrower angle of view, rather, but lets keep this in the 'realm' of 35mm, not medium format and otherwise), it's actually easier to design a lens with a more consistent exposure.

That sample you posted does display some light falloff, and it can be observed in the off-center borkeh not being perfectly round. You're not getting the same amount of light in as the angle of entry becomes larger.

It's there, it's just not as harsh as on the Noctilux.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>278144
Certainly there's a little light falloff, but nothing serious from my experience of, gee, shooting with a 90/4 Elmar. It's actually a pretty decent lens (allowing for the fact that it's a triplet), but I don't use it anymore because it's impossible to focus on my RD-1s.

Pardon my lack of technical knowledge, by the way, but perhaps the difference in lens sizes is also due to the SLR/RF flange distance differences? Just throwing that out there.
>> Anonymous
>>278181
I have to say you're right. What I did say in a later post does oppose such the notion that it will vignette like crazy, as well as the picture this other fag posted.

Flange is an important matter, and it does have important consequences in lens design. I forgot that detail in my assumptions.

Acquiring such small lens sizes with a larger flange, taking a mirror box into consideration, would require much more vignetting.

In short, you're right, but everything I said is true, but some parameters are different (SLR flange vs RF)
>> Anonymous
>>278150

I guess that explains why LF lenses are so small in comparison to 35mm primes.
>> Anonymous
>>278200
I could spend a long time explaining this, but I won't. I'll just keep it down to this:
Different medium sizes and angles of view require different lens formulas and considerations.
Large format lenses are 'tiny', unless you consider they have to be mounted with a huge fucking bellows and they attempt to illuminate a large area.
>> Anonymous
>>278203
** But the same rules still apply.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
True, enlarging the projection circle of a lens isn't as simple as increasing the diameter of the elements. Same as how increasing the aperture of a lens isn't as simple as increasing the diameter of its front element.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>278224
Obviously, because the aperture measurement refers to the hole formed by the aperture blades.

(Though of course simply increasing that size doesn't help without changing other things too)
>> Anonymous
>>278234
>the aperture measurement refers to the hole formed by the aperture blades.

Not exactly... it's actually the radius/diameter of the light ray entering the lens to form a point. Depending on the design, the aperture hole will most often be much smaller than the entry beam.

I'll grab the noctilux as an example again (hell, even Sonnars are good examples). It's a 50mm F1.0. From what you said, the aperture should be around 50mm in width. The lens, however, is around 67mm wide, giving only around 9mm in which to hide the aperture blades when wide open. If you have looked into a Noctilux, it would seem that it's a big tube full of clear glass. Looking at the back, however, you find that the exit lens is much smaller.

Explanation: A 50mm beam enters the 60mm-wide lens. This beam's width is condensed/compressed into a smaller beam, around 30mm in width farther into the lens by the first few lens elements. The aperture hole is in fact 30mm wide. In appearance, the hole will be much bigger than 30mm, but that's because of the way the lens bends the light entering through either side of the system. On the other hand, while the front element is 60mm wide, you won't have a 60mm wide beam getting to your final image because of two reasons:
1) the light entering from the same direction but outside the useful circle will bend inwards too much, not reaching the image plane.
2) any useless light scattered will be attempted to be reduced by the aperture.

TLDR: The lens aperture is that of the actual light beam -used- to form a point image at the center of the front element. The diaphragm opening doesn't coincide with this, as light does not travel in a parallel direction within the lens; it coincides with said coherent beam's diameter at that point in the system.
>> Anonymous
>>278234
As you said, other things have to be changed, but it's -those- other things that actually define the lens' aperture width.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>278259
>>278260
Yay I learned something new today. So the size of the aperture hole in a lens of the same maximum aperture would be different if you changed its position? Because the beams don't travel parallel to the lens right?
>> Anonymous
>>278270
Yes. If you move it closer to the front element, it'll be bigger, but there are other things involved, as usual. How far you can move it forward or backwards depends on the design of the lens (focal length, elements involved, etc). If you change the position of the aperture diaphragm, the curves lenses behind it will probably have to change. You'll get other effects on the angle of view, light falloff, sharpness, etc. The position of the aperture diaphragm is also the main reason a lens might display coma. Even if a lens is designed with a lot of air in it, the aperture diaphragm has to be at a certain distance in order to correct for this aberration.

So in short, you could change it's position between the front and the back, and the aperture blades could be bigger or smaller, but you'd also be increasing coma.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>278071
What are you doing posting before me?!

Hoods r awesum
>> Anonymous
I always use a hood. It helps me not to stick my finger to the front element (I'm very good at it), also when it's raining it usually prevents water from getting to front element.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
     File :-(, x)
It makes my lens look bigger than it really is. Then again, it's more penis like if I put it on backwards

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A550Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 04:26:02Exposure Time0.8 secF-Numberf/2.6ISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height487RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> M?tin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>278524
I swear your d80 looks better than mine :(
I need a bigger peni*Ahem* lens.
>> Anonymous
>>278539I need a bigger peni*Ahem* lens.

No. You were right the first time.
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>278519
good point about the rain.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern822Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:09 03:16:05Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return DetectedFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width694Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>278554

A fine way to kill a camera.
>> SAGE
>>278577
at least it gets used.
>> Anonymous
>>278579

Didn't you know Leica's are made with the sole intention of shoving in a wardrobe and selling for profit in 50 years?
>> Anonymous
>>278696

Truth.
>> SAGE
>>278696
http://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm
>> Anonymous
>>278713

What an idiot! He's completely ruined the resale value. Everyone knows that cameras are all about the resale value. At least that's what everyone on dpreview seems to be worried about - more than using them for photography. Any time a new camera comes out everyone has to quickly judge the the value changes as if it was the stock market.
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
I have a praktica MTL 5, is it worth anything? three possibly four lenses as well
>> SAGE
>>278757
use it! be happy that you can!
>> SAGE
>>278746
sounds like you read what the canonfags thought of the 5D
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>278763
I'd love to if i could find the stupid battery it takes.
>> SAGE
>>278765
doesnt it work without a battery? you can use an external meter anyway, i would. say a Sekonic Flashmate L-308
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>278766
i reckon it should but the last time i shot it none of the film was exposed. mind you i haven't shot film since i was 13. i guess i forgot how to : (.
>> SAGE
>>278770
ok what battery does it need
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>278774
reading the online manual right now. ican tell you the cr2032 battery is to big.
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>278775
on an unrelated side note it looks like i lost my nikon f401. kinda shitty
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>278780
neg that, it was in my sock drawer.
>> SAGE
>>278775
2 seconds in google
http://www.ecamerafilms.com/product_p/100578.htm
>> SAGE
>>278780
oh wow, your place must be a huge mess
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
>>278784
you have no idea. i'd post pictures but it would be pretty embarrassing
>> Anonymous
>>278713

Unbelievable. Look at the neglect that camera's had. An absolute disgrace. I'd hate to think what the lens looks like.
>> SAGE
>>278815
neglect? looks like it had plenty of attention to me.
>> Anonymous
It's a Leica. They're supposed to sit in a wardrobe not be used.
>> Anonymous
>>278057
ah nice to see a real idiot at work
Homer, did it ever occur to you that just because the flash is "on axis" that the reflection and/or specular sources in the shot may not be?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>279441
lens hoods frequently block on-axis flash genius

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSAMSUNG TECHWINCamera ModelGX-1SCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2006:07:20 10:18:31Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/6.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias1/2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width435Image Height289RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>samsung techwin
>> Anonymous
>>279455

Not an issue if you are competent at all.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>279502

Truth
>> Anonymous
>>279502
In other words, lens hoods are not an issue if you remove them.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
I had my tripod & camera take a tumble directly onto the lens when it wasn't wearing a filter. The hood helped protect the lens from getting scratched up.
>> Anonymous
Wow, this damn thread seems way off topic. Anyway, hoods are good, and I use the ones that came with my lenses, not a fan of buying lens hoods after the fact (fucking canon, you pay thousands of dollars and they can't be buggered to ship that extra piece of plastic?)

Anyway, I figure its as much to prevent shit from touching the lens as much as anything (yes, i use a filter too). I haven't noticed much of a difference in image quality.

Also, if you are worried about the shadow cast by your fucking flash, you're doing it wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>279505

Learn how to use lighting, troll.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>279455
This is how you use a flash with a lens hood.

On camera flash combined with a lens hood is instant fail.

Since lens hoods make walk around lenses look /p/ro, you should always leave them on, and if you are stupid enough to use a flash, don't attach it to your camera.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE990Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2004:03:31 10:01:06Exposure Time1/140 secF-Numberf/3.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlashFocal Length16.90 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height354
>> Anonymous
lol all that customization for a silver rebel
>> Anonymous
>>279627

makes more sense for someone with the rebel to be doing ghetto custom jobs than someone who can afford all the latest pro gear. i'd be loling more if it was a 1d
>> Anonymous
>>279627
>>279607
>>279630

So what if I make custom elk antler camera mounts, you got a problem with that?
>> Anonymous
>>279646

Yes.