Lens hood shadow with flash?

Moropo · 10-12-2014, 04:27 PM

Hello.

I bought a 18-135mm WR lens and I have been using for the past month but never with flash. Yesterday I needed to use the flash and noticed there's always a semi-circle of shadow on the bottom of the picture due to the lens hood. I'm using the regular hood that came with the lens.

Is this normal? Just something to live with?

Thanks.

**spartan** · 10-12-2014, 04:40 PM

many wide lenses will shadow with the built in flash. To my Knowledge the 16-45 and the 18-135 will shadow when used wide in conjunction with the on camera flash even without the lens hood (the hot shoe mounted flash should not) . I actually bought the sigma 17-70 because it is good performing lens which will not shadow with the built in flash, I also think the 18-55 kit lenses do not.

I have asked PF to test for this in future reviews and I think they will.

Nick

**rbefly** · 10-12-2014, 04:52 PM

Hello Moropo, welcome to the Forum!
Yep, Nick's right, the DA 16-45 and (I hear) the 18-135 both partially block the built-in flash, the 16-45mm extends 'backwards', that is, it's longest when zoomed to the wide end. The hood is large, too.
The quick fix is to remember to remove the hood when using the built-in flash, and try not to rack it to max (wide) zoom.
But, overall, the in-camera flash isn't very efficient and even a small hot shoe flash like the AF200 or mid-size AF360 will serve you much better. jmo.
Good luck,
Ron

abmj · 10-12-2014, 05:05 PM

As posted above, this is very common with many lenses. It is usually mentioned in the lens "instruction sheet" that nobody ever reads when a particular lens/hood combination will have this problem or the related vignetting at wide settings. Solution is to zoom a little bit when using flash or remove the hood. With really long lenses, you can get some shadowing even without the hood, just from the lens itself.

stevebrot · 10-12-2014, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by rbefly

Yep, Nick's right, the DA 16-45 and (I hear) the 18-135 both partially block the built-in flash

The same is true of the DA 18-55 Kit

Steve

rfg · 10-12-2014, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by spartan

I actually bought the sigma 17-70 because it is good performing lens which will not shadow with the built in flash ...

I have the Sigma 17-70; it definitely does shadow with the built in flash at wide angle (Kr and K3). Even with the hood reversed you can get a shadow.

stevebrot · 10-12-2014, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by rfg

I have the Sigma 17-70; it definitely does shadow with the built in flash at wide angle (Kr and K3). Even with the hood reversed you can get a shadow.

Which Sigma 17-70? I have the most recent (013 Contemporary) and the lens hood will shadow up to about 35mm on the K-3. With the hood off there is a very slight shadow at 17mm.

Steve

rfg · 10-12-2014, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Which Sigma 17-70? I have the most recent (013 Contemporary) and the lens hood will shadow up to about 35mm on the K-3. With the hood off there is a very slight shadow at 17mm.

Steve

I have the one before - V2 I guess ( f2.8-4). Sounds about the same as yours - definite shadows with the hood on, either mounted properly or reversed but pretty much OK without. There could well be a slight shadow at 17mm without the hood - haven't really checked that.

Sandy Hancock · 10-12-2014, 10:07 PM

Same with the DA*16-50. Take the hood off, or use a hotshoe flash, preferably bounced.

**spartan** · 10-13-2014, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by rfg

I have the Sigma 17-70; it definitely does shadow with the built in flash at wide angle (Kr and K3). Even with the hood reversed you can get a shadow.

I have the older 2.8-4.5 version and without the hood it does not shadow.... even at 17

Moropo · 10-13-2014, 05:51 AM

Thanks everyone.

Very rarely I shoot with flash, which is why I have had my new 18-135 for almost 2 months and just this weekend I found out about this. It was a family get-together, it got late, and there was no way I could get a decent shot without the flash.

Also, the 18-55mm with flash didnt create such shadow, and if it did it was very minimal and I didnt notice it, unlike with my 18-135 which you cant miss.

Also, thanks for the recommendation of getting the horse-shoe external flash. The AF200FG is kind of cheap at $76 so I might as well get that. I was reading a couple of reviews and for the basic use I will be giving it, it sounds perfect for me. However, I did read a couple of reviews that mentioned the actual horse-shoe mount was kind of weak?

Thanks again.

stevebrot · 10-13-2014, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Moropo

I did read a couple of reviews that mentioned the actual horse-shoe mount was kind of weak?

A plastic hot shoe mount is historically the most common. I would not worry about it.

Steve

10-12-2014, 04:27 PM	#1
Moropo Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 131	Lens hood shadow with flash? Hello. I bought a 18-135mm WR lens and I have been using for the past month but never with flash. Yesterday I needed to use the flash and noticed there's always a semi-circle of shadow on the bottom of the picture due to the lens hood. I'm using the regular hood that came with the lens. Is this normal? Just something to live with? Thanks.

10-12-2014, 04:52 PM	#3
rbefly Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 2,030	Shadowy? Hello Moropo, welcome to the Forum! Yep, Nick's right, the DA 16-45 and (I hear) the 18-135 both partially block the built-in flash, the 16-45mm extends 'backwards', that is, it's longest when zoomed to the wide end. The hood is large, too. The quick fix is to remember to remove the hood when using the built-in flash, and try not to rack it to max (wide) zoom. But, overall, the in-camera flash isn't very efficient and even a small hot shoe flash like the AF200 or mid-size AF360 will serve you much better. jmo. Good luck, Ron Last edited by rbefly; 10-12-2014 at 06:01 PM.

10-13-2014, 05:51 AM	#11
Moropo Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 131 Original Poster	Thanks everyone. Very rarely I shoot with flash, which is why I have had my new 18-135 for almost 2 months and just this weekend I found out about this. It was a family get-together, it got late, and there was no way I could get a decent shot without the flash. Also, the 18-55mm with flash didnt create such shadow, and if it did it was very minimal and I didnt notice it, unlike with my 18-135 which you cant miss. Also, thanks for the recommendation of getting the horse-shoe external flash. The AF200FG is kind of cheap at $76 so I might as well get that. I was reading a couple of reviews and for the basic use I will be giving it, it sounds perfect for me. However, I did read a couple of reviews that mentioned the actual horse-shoe mount was kind of weak? Thanks again. Last edited by Moropo; 10-13-2014 at 06:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens Hood with 18-135 kit ?	christo93	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	15	08-13-2014 02:47 PM
Will Takumar lens work with any 49mm lens hood???	iNicole	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	11-08-2012 11:07 AM
FLASH BLOCKED BY LENS. Ugly shadow created. WORK-AROUNDS?	SelfEmployedDebtFree	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	19	09-06-2011 05:27 PM
keep/avoid flash shadow w/single flash	danielchtong	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	05-09-2010 05:29 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 18-55mm lens hood with box (no lens, just hood and box)	drabina	Sold Items	3	09-13-2008 06:21 PM

10-12-2014, 04:40 PM	#2
spartan Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NJ, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 428	many wide lenses will shadow with the built in flash. To my Knowledge the 16-45 and the 18-135 will shadow when used wide in conjunction with the on camera flash even without the lens hood (the hot shoe mounted flash should not) . I actually bought the sigma 17-70 because it is good performing lens which will not shadow with the built in flash, I also think the 18-55 kit lenses do not. I have asked PF to test for this in future reviews and I think they will. Nick

10-12-2014, 05:05 PM	#4
abmj Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Central California Posts: 600	As posted above, this is very common with many lenses. It is usually mentioned in the lens "instruction sheet" that nobody ever reads when a particular lens/hood combination will have this problem or the related vignetting at wide settings. Solution is to zoom a little bit when using flash or remove the hood. With really long lenses, you can get some shadowing even without the hood, just from the lens itself.

10-12-2014, 05:42 PM	#5
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by rbefly Yep, Nick's right, the DA 16-45 and (I hear) the 18-135 both partially block the built-in flash The same is true of the DA 18-55 Kit Steve

10-12-2014, 05:51 PM	#6
rfg Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 139	Originally posted by spartan I actually bought the sigma 17-70 because it is good performing lens which will not shadow with the built in flash ... I have the Sigma 17-70; it definitely does shadow with the built in flash at wide angle (Kr and K3). Even with the hood reversed you can get a shadow.

10-12-2014, 05:58 PM	#7
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by rfg I have the Sigma 17-70; it definitely does shadow with the built in flash at wide angle (Kr and K3). Even with the hood reversed you can get a shadow. Which Sigma 17-70? I have the most recent (013 Contemporary) and the lens hood will shadow up to about 35mm on the K-3. With the hood off there is a very slight shadow at 17mm. Steve

10-12-2014, 08:56 PM	#8
rfg Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 139	Originally posted by stevebrot Which Sigma 17-70? I have the most recent (013 Contemporary) and the lens hood will shadow up to about 35mm on the K-3. With the hood off there is a very slight shadow at 17mm. Steve I have the one before - V2 I guess ( f2.8-4). Sounds about the same as yours - definite shadows with the hood on, either mounted properly or reversed but pretty much OK without. There could well be a slight shadow at 17mm without the hood - haven't really checked that.

10-12-2014, 10:07 PM	#9
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Same with the DA*16-50. Take the hood off, or use a hotshoe flash, preferably bounced.

10-13-2014, 04:39 AM	#10
spartan Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NJ, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 428	Originally posted by rfg I have the Sigma 17-70; it definitely does shadow with the built in flash at wide angle (Kr and K3). Even with the hood reversed you can get a shadow. I have the older 2.8-4.5 version and without the hood it does not shadow.... even at 17

10-13-2014, 10:38 AM	#12
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Moropo I did read a couple of reviews that mentioned the actual horse-shoe mount was kind of weak? A plastic hot shoe mount is historically the most common. I would not worry about it. Steve