Do I still need a lens hood if I am using a polarising filter already?

Hamster · Jun 1, 2009

I have a rectangular lenshood and it doesn't work very well with my polarising filter. My question is, do I really need a lenshood if I am already using a PL fliter already?

Q.G. · Jun 1, 2009

Yes. You do.

benjiboy · Jun 1, 2009

No you don't, PL filter + Lens hood = vignetting especially with wide angle lenses.

Anscojohn · Jun 1, 2009

Hamster said:
I have a rectangular lenshood and it doesn't work very well with my polarising filter. My question is, do I really need a lenshood if I am already using a PL fliter already?

******
Yes. If it vignettes, you need a larger hood.

Q.G. · Jun 1, 2009

Ditto.
If a hood vignettes, it is too small.
You still need one.

Thomas Wilson · Jun 1, 2009

It depends on a few variables. Can I assume that your lens hood is a bayonet mount?
What lens/filter combination are you using?
Is your PL filter bayonet mount or threaded?
If it is threaded, is it a thin Heliopan, for example, or a double threaded (stackable) type?

In some situations, you can use a snap-in lens hood, like the Nikon LS versions. It will snap into a double threaded PL filter, allowing you to rotate it with the hood, itself. I used to use this set up on an old 150 C bay 50. While it did work for this lens, it was a an arduous task setting the rings & filter. Since replacing the lens with a 150 CF (bay 60), I have relegated all of my adapter rings to the junk box. That alone was well worth the price of the lens.

There's no other work-around that I can think of, short of using a tripod, and wearing a baseball cap, which works well as a handy sun shield.

A multi-coated PL filter will help control flare, but not eliminate it.

Q.G. · Jun 1, 2009

A compendium/bellows hood is the best solution.
Being adjustable, no worries about vignetting then.

Hamster · Jun 1, 2009

I am using a spotmatic with takumar 55/1.8, Filter is a regular thickness Hoya PL filter.

I asked this question because I assume the PL will cut down a lot of flare and I already gained an edge with PL filter in terms of saturation.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 1, 2009

Think of the polarizing filter as removing reflections in front of the lens. The hood removes reflections within the lens. Even though the polarizer might help a little bit, it cannot replace the function of a hood.

keithwms · Jun 1, 2009

Check for vignetting. But generally, you are better off with a hood as well. Even if you need to find a bigger hood.

If you find that your regular hood gives you vignetting (easy to check) and decide that you need an inexpensive hood to go on the front of your polarizer, then consider the collapsible mamiya hoods... the black plastic ones you can get for the 645 and rb and rz systems. These are very inexpensive (esp. at KEH). I use them quite often on lenses for everything from 35mm to LF. I mount them either with stopdowns or just slip them on.

If you are using a rangefinder then you're probably going to have to shoot a test roll with polarizer and hood. That is, unless it is possible to fire your lens with the back open, in which case you can press some ground glass to the film plane and see if there is vignetting.

N.b. whether you have vignetting sometimes depends on aperture, so check wide open apertures, especially, at the extremes of focus.

Lightproof · Jun 1, 2009

Adding a filter makes any lens more prone to stray light. Retracted front elements of a lens often provide a good basic protection against stray light - adding a filter can disable this advantage!

eddym · Jun 1, 2009

If I already have a hamburger, then do I need a hot dog as well?

Galah · Jun 1, 2009

Hamster said:
I have a rectangular lenshood and it doesn't work very well with my polarising filter. My question is, do I really need a lenshood if I am already using a PL fliter already?

Short answer: yes you do.

Suggestion: buy a circular, collapsible, "rubber" lens hood (to suit the diameter and focal length of your lens). These circular rubber hoods screw directly into the front threads of your CP filter, and you can then adjust/manipulate the angle of the filter to the sun by holding on to the hood itself. Very simple!

Q.G. · Jun 2, 2009

eddym said:
If I already have a hamburger, then do I need a hot dog as well?

If that hamburger makes your hunger even greater, yes.

You don't think that a polarizer reduces reflections or flare, do you?
If so, be advised that it doesn't. It makes things worse.

Sirius Glass · Jun 2, 2009

Yes, you need both.

If using both is cumbersome, have you considered reducing the size of your hands?

Steve

eddym · Jun 2, 2009

Q.G. said:
If that hamburger makes your hunger even greater, yes.

You don't think that a polarizer reduces reflections or flare, do you?
If so, be advised that it doesn't. It makes things worse.

I know that. The two options are not related to each other. Maybe I used a poor metaphor. I'im trying to say that it's a non sequitur.

Anscojohn · Jun 2, 2009

eddym said:
I know that. The two options are not related to each other. Maybe I used a poor metaphor. I'im trying to say that it's a non sequitur.

******
Well, if it's a Non Sequitor, you definitely need a lens hood. The Sequitor, howemsoever, is rarely plagued by stray light.

pnance · Jun 2, 2009

Do I need to use a lens hood? My dentist tells me I only need to brush the teeth I want to keep. So, only use a lens hood when you want to increase the contrast of the image you're trying to take, or when you don't want any internal reflections showing in the image. For me, that's almost always.

Sirius Glass · Jun 2, 2009

Hey, get with the program! [programme!!]

If you do not use lens hoods, how are those Hong Kong exporter of the cheap lens hoods knock-offs going to stay in business?

Steve

Q.G. · Jun 2, 2009

Why, they'll just start making no hoods.
I bet they'll sell a lot of those too. Enough to cover the expenses anyway. So no worries about their businesses going under.

Lightproof · Jun 3, 2009

You are wrong, they will start manufacturing transparent hoods ))

Tony Egan · Jun 5, 2009

Stick it on tripod and use your hat! (or your hand, or a dark slide, banana leaf etc etc)

And yes you need both. They are definitely not substitutes for each other. And take the UV or other protective filter off rather than double up with a polarizer.

2F/2F · Jun 5, 2009

You don't need a hood, PERIOD. You need a hood if....you need a hood! If you are in a situation where you think a hood wold benefit you a good deal, then it is even more important to use one if you are using filters, because: 1. The first glass surface that the light strikes is farther out from the body, and 2. more glass surfaces for the light to pass through = more flare.

Q.G. · Jun 5, 2009

2F/2F said:
You don't need a hood, PERIOD. You need a hood if....you need a hood!

Which is when you need a hood. And then you will need a hood, because you need a hood.

And that is always, except when the lens cap is on, or when you are not exposing film through the lens you are thinking about putting a hood on.
But apart from that, always. PERIOD.

By the way: be carefull with dark slides. Some of those are bare metal thingies, and often reflect more light towards the lens than they keep away from it.

2F/2F · Jun 5, 2009

Well, then I guess we have to define "need, PERIOD"...of course.

I thought of a "needed, PERIOD" item as an item without which you might as well not take a picture at all, because it just would not come out without it.

For instance: To shoot in low levels of light (say you read EV 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, something ugly like that) at a hand holdable shutter speed and obtain a "conventionally technically sound" or at least salvageable shot, one needs a film/ISO with high sensitivity to light.

I have certainly taken a huge share of my pictures without a hood, as have many people. Not only that, but they have come out, and been just fine. Heck. When I first started, I shot with a filter as well. I still like my pix...the ones I like, anyhow.

This is not to say that a lens hood does not do something in all cases...but need? I don't think so.

I use one most of the time, just because if I have the proper hood, I might as well use it. I don't use it when it makes the camera too big and/ or won't make an important difference anyhow. However, might as well and could benefit from are far from need to.

My points, again, were:

1. I would be careful with the use of the word "need". Lots of people use the concept of "need" to manipulate consumers and/or bypass explanation of an answer.
2. Filters increase the likelihood that a lens hood will help your shot, thus a hood will have even more benefit with a filter on than without.

So, you will probably see benefits from, but you do not need.

To clarify the idea I was trying to put forth re: the word need: Need is a word that is thrown about by itself in photography and elsewhere, when it really "needs" to have criteria listed along with it for purposes of specificity and clarity of point: "Need for" or "need in order to", instead of "need, PERIOD". Kind of like the word "vintage". When used alone, it has come to mean "old" or "antique", when it should have a year or period attached to it.

Do I still need a lens hood if I am using a polarising filter already?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency