Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-13-2016, 02:21 AM   #31
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
There is no need to ask the internet when it easy to just do the tests yourself. Loosen the hood enough that you can easily shoot it with and without, and with a UV filter. Use your 43 every day for a few days (at least), taking three shots in each situation using the three options. For bonus points shoot static objects on tripod to eliminate some other variables.

Personally, I can't see the point of protective filters when a decent hood both protects and improves IQ. But we've been here before ad nauseam.

04-13-2016, 08:32 AM - 2 Likes   #32
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,523
Here you go. From this morning with some oblique diffused sunlight.
Exposure was kept constant in M mode, no changes to levels, contrast, etc in processing.

#1 with hood
#2 no hood
#3 no hood, UV filter added

The lens front element and UV filter were cleaned with a LensPen prior to testing to remove any dust or smudges
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 

Last edited by mikeSF; 04-13-2016 at 08:47 AM.
04-13-2016, 08:43 AM - 1 Like   #33
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
Here you go. From this morning with some oblique diffused sunlight.
Exposure was kept constant in M mode
#1 with hood
#2 no hood
#3 no hood, UV filter added

The lens front element and UV filter were cleaned with a LensPen prior to testing to remove any dust or smudges
That's helpful. Why not a fourth option of hood+UV filter?
04-13-2016, 08:46 AM   #34
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,523
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
That's helpful. Why not a fourth option of hood+UV filter?
because the UV filter is not catching light when it is under the hood. It seems to be problematic when it is exposed to oblique (stray) light.

04-13-2016, 10:04 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
There is no need to ask the internet when it easy to just do the tests yourself. Loosen the hood enough that you can easily shoot it with and without, and with a UV filter. Use your 43 every day for a few days (at least), taking three shots in each situation using the three options. For bonus points shoot static objects on tripod to eliminate some other variables.

Personally, I can't see the point of protective filters when a decent hood both protects and improves IQ. But we've been here before ad nauseam.
You don't have eg sea gulls in Aus then?
04-13-2016, 10:16 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
because the UV filter is not catching light when it is under the hood. It seems to be problematic when it is exposed to oblique (stray) light.
That's a good point, but I've found that there is still a difference with a UV filter plus hood either because the front lens element is recessed further back than the filter, or because of either specular light sources or a bright overcast sky will lower the contrast with light reflecting off the front element and back again off the rear of the filter.
04-13-2016, 10:30 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
That's a good point, but I've found that there is still a difference with a UV filter plus hood either because the front lens element is recessed further back than the filter, or because of either specular light sources or a bright overcast sky will lower the contrast with light reflecting off the front element and back again off the rear of the filter.
If you are shooting at night with eg a street light in the frame you need to remove any filters, except if you have one on the non plane ones Pentax used to do for high contrast scenes.
04-13-2016, 11:07 AM - 1 Like   #38
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
If you are shooting at night with eg a street light in the frame you need to remove any filters, except if you have one on the non plane ones Pentax used to do for high contrast scenes.
Agreed. Personally, I use a hood and no filter unless I'm in a harsh environment with salt spray at the beach, volcanic smog (3 days last weekend), or I'm using a non-WR lens in the mist or rain.

04-13-2016, 11:13 AM   #39
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,523
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
That's a good point, but I've found that there is still a difference with a UV filter plus hood either because the front lens element is recessed further back than the filter, or because of either specular light sources or a bright overcast sky will lower the contrast with light reflecting off the front element and back again off the rear of the filter.
That seems like a very specific situation; have you considered testing it yourself?
As such it is out of scope of the original question, sorry, I am unable to comply.
04-13-2016, 11:17 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Agreed. Personally, I use a hood and no filter unless I'm in a harsh environment with salt spray at the beach, volcanic smog (3 days last weekend), or I'm using a non-WR lens in the mist or rain.
Don't like concept of Vulcan smog.
Our high streets have illegal levels of auto by product.
Our Sea Gulls are healthy enough too.
04-13-2016, 11:51 AM - 1 Like   #41
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,863
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
Here you go. From this morning with some oblique diffused sunlight.
Exposure was kept constant in M mode, no changes to levels, contrast, etc in processing.
Thanks for the quick test Mike. That's is indeed quite helpful.

QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
There is no need to ask the internet when it easy to just do the tests yourself.
That isn't terribly helpful on a forum, nor (and this should be obvious) is it true that shooting test rolls is "just as easy" as asking here.

....
The point of this thread was NEVER about furthering any sort of tired and boring hood/no-hood debate. A hood increases IQ - this is known.
This thread was about reducing bulk of a travel kit and weighing the trade-offs regarding this *specific* lens. Perhaps I phrased my initial posting poorly (I didn't think so, but maybe I was wrong) - The fact is that SOME lenses clearly benefit MORE from a hood than others and this conversation, from my perspective, was simply about finding a better balance of performance vs bulk for this very small lens and asking about other user's experiences using it hooded and not hooded. Seems reasonable doesn't it?

At any rate... The FA 43/1.9, it has been determined here at least, benefits substantially from a lens hood. If one would like to reduce bulk, look to the smaller DA40 style lens hood, or a collapsible style hood if the (albeit not necessarily large) OEM hood does not meet your needs. Cheers y'all.
04-13-2016, 03:26 PM   #42
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
That seems like a very specific situation; have you considered testing it yourself?
As such it is out of scope of the original question, sorry, I am unable to comply.
Mike,

From my own tests in the distant past, I've found that for digital, the best image results were in this order:

1) lens hood only
2) lens hood with filter
3) no hood, no filter
4) no hood, filter

Your sample test verifies 3 out of 4 of these.

With film, especially black and white, the filter can make a significant improvement due to UV or contrast effects like a yellow filter.
As you probably know, there are many variables including focal length for zooms, aperture, lighting, etc. I've also seen artifacts due to light entering the optical viewfinder.
04-13-2016, 04:21 PM - 2 Likes   #43
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
That isn't terribly helpful on a forum, nor (and this should be obvious) is it true that shooting test rolls is "just as easy" as asking here.
Well I did write "easy", not "just as easy"

Maybe I'm odd, but real world tests with my own gear mean more to me than the frequently conflicting opinions of a multitude of others.

Anyway, Mike's post should have put the issue to bed.

QuoteQuote:
You don't have sea gulls in Aus then?
Lots actually, but I don't spend much time pointing my lens straight up at a flock of them
04-13-2016, 05:12 PM   #44
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,863
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Well I did write "easy", not "just as easy"
Hahah - I suppose that's a fair distinction.
04-13-2016, 07:01 PM   #45
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I don't spend much time pointing my lens straight up at a flock of them
What goes up must come down, photographing a flock of flying seagulls overhead would be a justifiable cause to use a UV filter on the lens.


I use my LTM FA43mm f/1.9 Special on my Leica cameras, and the issue with some lens hoods on RF cameras is that they can block the viewfinder, and in some cases the RF patch itself can be obscured by the lens hood*. I find the FA43 does flare easily when used wide open. Flare and ghosting is easier to control when stopped down - at any rate the LTM 43mm f/1.9much better than the Leica Summicron 50mm f/2. The hood for the FA43 is wider than most Leica f/2 lenses and the lower right corner of the VF is blocked from view. However, because of the extra width of the hood, I find it to be it is more effective at blocking off axis stray light.



* the Lens hoods for the three Noctilux lenses from leica are famous for doing this, Voigtlander make vented lens hoods for these lenses which don't block the RF viewfinder.


Last edited by Digitalis; 04-13-2016 at 07:13 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
49mm, camera, comparison, contrast, da, filter, flare, hood, hoods, kit, leica, lens, lens cap, lot, m40/2.8, mine, phil, pm, post, protection, replacement, roll, rubber, sun, thanks, trick, uv filter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA43 hood alternatives todd Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 12-07-2014 03:17 PM
DA 21mm Lens Hood Necessary? K206 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 03-07-2011 10:19 PM
Is a filter necessary for the DFA100mm WR? ohyouloveme Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 11-25-2010 03:20 PM
Lens hood - when is it necessary? esman7 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 26 09-11-2009 07:03 PM
Lens hood like the FA43 -- where to find? rparmar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 04-10-2009 03:08 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top