[Sandy Hancock]

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.

[mikeSF]

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

[Alex645]

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?

[mikeSF]

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.

[Xmas]

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?

[Alex645]

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.

[Xmas]

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.

[Alex645]

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.

[mikeSF]

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.

[Xmas]

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.

[Eyewanders]

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.

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.

[Alex645]

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.

[Sandy Hancock]

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.

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

[Eyewanders]

Well I did write "easy", not "just as easy"

Hahah - I suppose that's a fair distinction.

[Digitalis]

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.