Why use a sunshade on a lens...

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Just because of that...



and also in case one shoots reflected UV here:



Difference is quite striking, that loss of contrast..

(images shot using a Coastal Optical Systems UV-Micro-Apo f4 105mm)

[CS]

Very dramatic.

[Les Olson]

Unfortunately, it is hard to get hoods that are aggressive enough. 

Hasselblad used to make an adjustable hood, and their advice then was that the optimal amount of shading was when you had just perceptible vignetting.  These days a hood that caused obvious vignetting would probably be regarded as unacceptable. 

An adjustable hood is obviously essential for a zoom, but even for a prime it is a good idea because as apertures get smaller the hood needs to be more aggressive for optimal shading.   

[Roland Vink]

(images shot using a Coastal Optical Systems UV-Micro-Apo f4 105mm)

I believe the coatings on this lens are not very effective for visible light since they must also be able to pass UV (and infra-red?) light. Therefore, using a hood would probably make more of a difference than another lens which has modern coatings optimised for visible light.
Still, it is an effective example of what difference a good hood can make.

[Bjørn Solberg]

Question: Will a cheap screw in hood for filter treads be OK for my old lenses, the two to the right don't need.

[Les Olson]

I believe the coatings on this lens are not very effective for visible light since they must also be able to pass UV (and infra-red?) light. Therefore, using a hood would probably make more of a difference than another lens which has modern coatings optimised for visible light.

Isn't the hood to cut off non-image forming light, which can only rattle around inside the lens and cause flare?  So coatings would not affect its value. 

[David H. Hartman]

Question: Will a cheap screw in hood for filter treads be OK for my old lenses, the two to the right don't need.

First let me say I would use a lens hood on all of these lenses. While it's true that a hood for the 24/2.8 Nikkor NC isn't going to be a great help with stray light it does help a little but perhaps more important it can protect the lens from impact. I'm not sure of the particular lens but I've seen a lens and filter saved by a hood that was shoved into the filter so there was an imprint of the serrations of the filter in the hood. The hood had to be cut and turned inward and pull away from the lens and filter. The lens might have been my fathers 35/2.0 AI and the hood would have been a Nikon HN-3.

I just had a lens pouch open and my AF 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor slid out. The HN-22 hood is slightly deformed. I think the lens is fine but haven't done more than a quick and dirty test.

The 24/2.8 lenses use a Nikon HN-1 for $22.95 (USD) and there is a cheap knockoff made Vello for $9.95 (USD).

The chart I have says the 55/1.2 uses a Nikon HN-6 hood.

The 55/3.5 uses a Nikon NH-3 hood and while the lens is deep and well shaded a hood would protect the filter threads from impact. I use an HN-3 on some and not on others. You'd want to ditch the hood when focusing quite close.

You might use a 52mm aluminum filter ring with no glass in the 135/2.8 if you wanted to protect then filter threads on the lens.

Best,

Dave Hartman

---

Here is a chart I've used for years...

http://www.oocities.org/rick_housh/camera/nikon/lenshoods.html

[David H. Hartman]

Isn't the hood to cut off non-image forming light, which can only rattle around inside the lens and cause flare?  So coatings would not affect its value.

I think the coatings on the lens make a difference. I would think in the Nikkor lens an older single coated lens would benefit more from a hood than an AI or early to mid AIS lens. This is something to test at least for me. Anyway I use a hood on lens except say a 55/3.5 that's normally use for macro or very close.

Now keeping non-image forming light out of a lens can only help for I'll say all lenses benefit to some degree. Those that benefit the least could be my 24/2.8 AI and AF 80-200/2.8D ED (New) as the hood can only be long enough to properly shade the lens at 80mm. Also the hood for the 80-200/2.8 is not of the tulip design. Flare can be a problem for that lens in a way that a 105/2.5 or 135/2.8 with an HS-8 or 14 hood is not. Those hoods are deep and do a very good job.

A bellows or compendium lens hood will give the best protection but they aren't practical for most photography. The compendium hoods are for view cameras and take more time to setup than the bellows hood for a Hasselblad 500CM or similar. Someone made a bellows hood for 35mm film cameras and they may still be made. I don't know.

Anyway I recommend a lens hood for all lenses if for no other reason than they afford some protection to the lens from impact.

There are a lot of variables in how much difference a with and without comparison will show but I think at least in some situations a hood offering very little protection from stray light will make a detectable difference if not significant difference. An example would be a 24/2.8 with an HN-1 hood. If one can keep their hand out of the image a hand will often help a lot.

Sorry about the writing quality it's 4:26 AM and I haven't been to bed yet.

Best,

Dave - Typos R Us

[Hugh_3170]

Lens hoods, especially on very wide angle lenses, also are a protection against absent minded photographers from accidentally touching the front lens elements with their grubby fingers.....

If using an older Nikkor on a cropped sensor camera, such as a DX or APS-C or M43 camera, then using a hood for a longer focal length as used on an FX/135 format sensor camera is also a good move, as it effectively shields that part of the front element that doesn't play a part in image formation on the cropped sensor.

[Michael Erlewine]

What would be the rules, if any, for the size of a lens hood or compendium to keep out unwanted light? Where would I get, let's say, a compendium that would fit a 77mm thread?

[Les Olson]

What would be the rules, if any, for the size of a lens hood or compendium to keep out unwanted light? Where would I get, let's say, a compendium that would fit a 77mm thread?

Lee make a compendium-type Universal Lens Hood (http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera-directory/camera-dir-list/category/universal-hood) and a range of rings to fit it to different sized lens threads.  Mamiya made one for the RB/RZ67 called a G3 which attaches directly to 77mm threads and is readily available used.   

Hasselbald used to make a device that enabled you to inspect the exit pupil with the lens mounted on the camera, but absent that I think you are stuck with test shots.  There is some useful discussion of principles at http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenshood.html#ref1

[the solitaire]

First let me say I would use a lens hood on all of these lenses. While it's true that a hood for the 24/2.8 Nikkor NC isn't going to be a great help with stray light it does help a little but perhaps more important it can protect the lens from impact. I'm not sure of the particular lens but I've seen a lens and filter saved by a hood that was shoved into the filter so there was an imprint of the serrations of the filter in the hood. The hood had to be cut and turned inward and pull away from the lens and filter. The lens might have been my fathers 35/2.0 AI and the hood would have been a Nikon HN-3.

I just had a lens pouch open and my AF 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor slid out. The HN-22 hood is slightly deformed. I think the lens is fine but haven't done more than a quick and dirty test.

The 24/2.8 lenses use a Nikon HN-1 for $22.95 (USD) and there is a cheap knockoff made Vello for $9.95 (USD).

The chart I have says the 55/1.2 uses a Nikon HN-6 hood.

The 55/3.5 uses a Nikon NH-3 hood and while the lens is deep and well shaded a hood would protect the filter threads from impact. I use an HN-3 on some and not on others. You'd want to ditch the hood when focusing quite close.

You might use a 52mm aluminum filter ring with no glass in the 135/2.8 if you wanted to protect then filter threads on the lens.

Best,

Dave Hartman

---

Here is a chart I've used for years...

http://www.oocities.org/rick_housh/camera/nikon/lenshoods.html

The other right Dave

The two lenses on the right come with a built in hood (135mm f2,8 Nikkor-Q.C) and the one next to it, the 55mm f3,5 Nikkor-P Micro Nikkor has such a recessed front element that a lens hood will hardly make a difference.

[the solitaire]

Question: Will a cheap screw in hood for filter treads be OK for my old lenses, the two to the right don't need.

The standard hood for the 24mm isn't really effective, so a cheap screw in metal or rubber hood will certainly not perform worse. The thing I found with rubber hoods however is that nowadays they are so skinny that the rubber does not keep it's shape, often causing unwanted vignetting. With that in mind, I often stick with metal hoods for my manual Nikkro lenses.

The HS-7 snap on hood can be used for a range of different lenses. It's wider then the regular 50mm lens hood, but it's deeper as well, so I use it for 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and, in a pinch, 135mm lenses. Since I do not own a 35mm lens, I have not been able to test the HS-7 for vignetting on a 35mm lens. Maybe it would be ok there as well.

The built-in lens hood on the 135mm f2,8 is ok, but I found the HS-7 to be more effective on that lens.

That way, you can bring a single lens hood and use it on a few different lenses.

[David H. Hartman]

The built-in lens hood on the 135mm f2,8 is ok, but I found the HS-7 to be more effective on that lens.

The built in hood on my 180/2.8 ED AIS works well but the ones on my 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS are so wobbly that I used an HS-8 or 14. The HS-14 is the dedicated hood for the 105/2.8 AIS. It may be discontinued. My all purpose hood is the HN-3. All of these hoods accept a Topperware tumbler cap #G. The Nikon school used to recommend these.

Dave

[Roland Vink]

Isn't the hood to cut off non-image forming light, which can only rattle around inside the lens and cause flare?  So coatings would not affect its value.

If the coatings are effective, the non-image forming light will pass through the glass and be soaked up by the internal light baffles. Poor coatings will cause more of the light to reflect from each lens surface and bounce around, with some eventually getting to the sensor, causing flare.