Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Hoods or ProShade


Active Member
I've always used the "standard" Hasselblad plastic hoods on my various lenses.

But, recently while using my 50mm and 60mm lenses in tricky light I wondered if the pro-shade would not be more effective / reliable!

It struck me that the small 38-60mm lens compatable plastic hood must be to some degree less effective on the 50 / 60mm lenses since it's wide enough for the 38mm lens - a pro-shade being adjustable would likely enable much more precise shading of the lenses. Am I on the right track?

If a pro-shade is indeed a worthwhile alternative, is there a version better than the other versions, and why?

Many thanks for your help.

I seldom use my pro-shade (6093T) as the others are faster and more durable when hand holding the camera.

However, the shade is 20mm longer at the CF60mm setting than at the 38mm setting.

Also, I think it is a deceiving prospect from a monetary point, because adapter rings are required in addition to the shade and I believe they are expensive.



You can get fixed bayonet 60 hoods made for the 80 mm lens, and reduce their lengths to make the optimum fixed hood for 60 and 50 mm lenses.
You need to shorten such a hood by 17 mm for the 60 mm lens, and take off another 1.5 mm more for the 50 mm lens.
A sander belt would perhaps not be the fastest, but still a very good way to achieve this. It's easiest to get an even reduction, equal on all four sides, this way, compared to using a saw and/or file.
Thanks Gilbert and QG.

I have borrowed a CF pro-shade (I think it is the one before the 6093T). Seems ok enough hand-held and fine on a tripod. But, Gilbert you are so right about how much extra hood it is for all focal lengths!

And QG, as ever you suggest a brilliant idea - it makes such good sense! While I am no handyman and avoid owning the necessary equipment, I am sure I can press-gang some poor friend into doing the mods for me.

I'll do a comparison test with tranny film on strong backlight and strong oblique light, with the plastic hoods and then with the pro-shade and see how I go both from a result aspect and an ergonomics aspect.

I like my plastic hoods, but have learned they are in no way optimal. They are also a pain to pack for an outing, since they do not fit backwards on the lenses (a la Canon / Nikon) and they are bulky. While at first glance the pro-shade is somewhat bulky even when folded it may be less so than carrying 2 or 3 plastic hoods (?). However, having to use the pro-shade masks for all focal lengths above 100mm might be a nuisance and may lead to missing parts...... blah blah (I use 120, 150, 180 and 250 a lot). Time will tell.

So many thanks to you both.

While we share a low traffic web resource, the quality of interraction is very very high indeed.
I have owned and used all iterations of the Hasselblad Pro Shade. IMO, they are not the most effective use of money compared to others available.

The problem I have is the limitations for use of professional filters, an absolute necessity to maximize MF versatility whether shooting film or digital. IMO for ex&le, adjustable ND and tinted grads are worth their weight in gold for both landscape and travel photography as well as wedding work.

In comparison, systems like that from Lee allow use of those longer grads that you can slide in and adjust for effect. They make adapter rings to fit virtually all lenses including those from Zeiss/Hasselblad ... and even make a wide shade with reverse adapters that allow use of two filters without vignetting (shown in background of pic below (this shade can even be used on the SWC camera). Lee shades also fold flat like the Pro Shade and are easy to transport.


After reading your reply, I think you may like the 6093T and if my recollection is correct you only need a mask for the 250mm, which is supplied with the shade.

I do agree with you about storing and carry the other shades, I actually prefer those that are built in and slide into position.

Good Luck:

Marc, you raise a very important point. I use Cokin filters (P) - sparingly.

But it has struck me that the bellows units that both Cokin and Lee supply do not have focal length position indicators making optimal positioning a bit hit and miss or too fidly when on the run. In a studio it's less of an issue but out in the field it may be a time issue - maybe I'm missing something here.

How do you overcome that?

I will try to shorten a 60/80 hood according to the measurements Q.Q gave earlier in this thread . If i am successful , i will send you one .
Thanks Jurgen,
That is so kind of you. In return, I'll source a 60/80 hood locally (without the surgery) and post back to you.
Regards and many thanks again.
Look through the viewfinder Simon. I use these shades at weddings all the time ... which is "on the run" at it's most demanding.

I am very often faced with tricky lighting because I can't always control where the outdoor ceremony will be performed ... frequently it's in the shade with an "atomic blast sky" above ... bad for film capture and near impossible for digital ... where a ND grad becomes invaluable

But if I don't need filters then the stock shades are fine, and I've never had a problem using them as is. Generally, I store the stock shades by placing them over the back of the lens using a cloth inbetween to protect the lens and shade. Space is at a premium in my wedding bag.

No hurry . I have a mortising machine and will try out with an old shade (60/100) first . The problem is how to fix the hood in the machine vice without damageing the inside . If it works out fine , i will shorten a couple of hoods , as friends are also interested . Give me some time . I will report my success or failure .
Thanks Gilbert, now I understand the benefit beween the versions - a definite advantage as you say.

Also, thanks Marc; I will experiment just as you say - but, I have wondered if the shade effect of the bellows atatchment on the Lee / Cokin filter carrier is as effective as it needs to be. Bearing in mind the very harsh Aussie sunlight; I have wondered if the gap between the bellows and the lens, due to the filter slots, does not have a risk of stray light entering the lens at nasty angles - just seems like a lot of open space to me or is that a needless concern?

Thanks again.

It isn't a needless concern, no.
But there are more solutions than buying another shade/holder.
You could, for instance, fashion a lid out of cardboard, and cover the slot. Or use a cloth. Or...
What would be the best solution however, is something else.

The 6093 shades are perfect in this regard, holding the filters inside the shade. The downside of that is that (as reported) you can't use (longer) grads.

Please forgive my oversights. Filters work very well with the 6093T. 75mm and 100mm gelatin drop in and it easily opens to remove or replace glass filters, or adjust polarizers.

Hand holding is fine as Marc stated. I meant to say while out for a walk and ready to shoot, as it is more fragile and expensive to replace.



If you have not yet acquired a ND grad filter outfit, and are considering doing so -- and given that you also have a Technika 4x5 -- you may want to consider the Lee system as a universal filter and hood system for you medium and large format outfits.

Something to consider re. your Blad system is for filters that you do not commonly use, but still find useful, standardize on one size and use step-up rings. For instance, as I have a 50 FLE (as do you) I use a B70 to 77 mm. adapter and use 77 mm. filters exclusively on that lens (cheaper than an array of B70 filters); for my B60 lens I use a B60-77 mm. step-up ring accordingly.

A reason why I standardized on the 77 mm. size is that I use 77 mm. wide angle lens adapters with my Lee system. I permanently fixed (Loctite'd) a B60 to 77 mm. step-up ring in one adapter; and a B70 to 77 mm. adapter in another wide 77 mm. Lee adapter. This works quite well, and enables me to set-up a shoot quite quickly.

A reason why I settled on the Lee wide angle adapter is that is made of metal; whereas the standard adapter is plastic -- in part, a question of durability. Whether you use it with a short or long lens doesn't really matter, but it definitely makes a difference when mounting the filter system on the 38 Biogon :)

I do not use the Lee hoods, but instead mounted Lee's 105 mm. threaded adapter ring on the outer edge of the filter holder. I subsquently use 105 mm. wide and tele metal hoods instead -- a bit of a compromise solution, but it allows me to use a graduated filter and 105 mm. polarizer whenever both are called for. All told, it is a fairly versatile yet relatively simple outfit.

Just food for thought.
Thanks QG. Yes, what you describe is like what I do now for the slow tripod setup shooting - the Cokin filter holder with a Lee bellows at the front and an Ebony "cold" shoe mounted 3 section shade higher above to keep the light off the Cokin holder suspended from above. This is fine for that type of shooting I would normally prefer to do with my 4x5 system but when 4x5 is not practical.

So the idea of using a pro-shade arose for both hand-held and less elaborate tripod setups just like my last trip to the bush.

The trial I did last weekend with a pro-shade (6093) highlighted through the viewfinder some very real differences and seemed ok enough hand-held.

Thanks Gilbert. I understand and think each shade type (bellows or plastic hood) is not perfect for all situations - different horses for different courses I suppose as you've commented. I will look at the T version to see if I feel I'll benefit from the "enhanced" design you point out since the cost locally is significantly different.

And, thanks Wayne. I have standardised my filter system - Cokin P (77mm like the Lee system) which I am very happy with and use on my 6x6 as well as Linhof 4x5. So I totally agree with you.

The only conventional filters I have are B60 Blad and Leica-M for polarisers and 2 or 3 "fit and forget" filter types for walk-about photography - pure convenience.

Lee was not available here (I don't know if it is or not these days) when I got the Cokin system years ago. Some people criticise the use of non-optical glass, but I have to say that I have never seen any image degradation. I was also impressed to see that Marc uses Lee (thinking Lee and Cokin are on a par - maybe I am wrong here) and he is certainly not one to accept any image degradation. And, I gather you are equally happy with Lee filters. Until I discover a quality issue with my Cokin filters, I won't change them.

Thanks again gentlemen - great discussion. Who'd think such a minor issue like a lens hood could lead to this breadth of image quality issues - great stuff!


I do not think Lee and Cokin are on par. Not close, even.
I found Cokin filters to be, well..., let' just say "not good": many are (or will become) warped, have "schlieren", colour not right...
But maybe i was unlucky?

Lee, and Cromatek, are much better. They too are not glass, but that in itself is no problem. As long as they are made well, from a good resin, that's perfectly fine.

The 'natural' filter size to use in the 6093 ProShade is 100 mm. Large enough to be used with even the largest lenses. And large enough not to need extra bits to make them fit the ProShade's 100 mm holder.
Thanks QG again. I've never noticed any flaws in my Cokin filters but now I will make a close examination - they have always appeared crystal clear to my eyes; but, a careful exam with a loupe will not hurt. Thanks also for the tip on the pro-shade and 100mm filters.
Hi Guys,

Very interesting discussion, thanks, I have also been suffering bloom and contrast problems when using wide angle flash (bounces from surroundings, so, having read the above I decided to repair a pro shade (6093) which I inherited.
I know, I'd be better to get the complete original kit, but I was too impatient to then wait for an affordable Bay 50 adaptor to come up for sale, so I made one by setting a filter ring into an 11,5 cm aluminium disk.
However, never having seen another pro-shade up close, it would seem that either the genuine adaptor has the bayonet set back by approx 1,5 cm, or, that the front end of the bellows would normally carry a square 11,5 cm plate with a cut out of approx 7,5 - 8 cm in the middle - these dimensions are guesswork based on tests and the settings marked on the pro-shade.
Tell me, am I missing a part, or can anyone give me more exact dimensions on the above? - A photo would be most useful!

I must admit that the idea of the plate with a cut out seems the most logical, since having tried this, just looking through the device gives a really impressive dark surround, much better than a simple "standard" hood.

All help welcome!
Regards, Gérard

Just to make shure : i am awaiting 2 hoods and i want to shorten them for a
CARL ZEISS DISTAGON CF 3,5 /60 T* . They will have to be shortened by 17mm , thats what you stated in an earlier contribution . Is that correct ? ? ?
I believe i will succeed to shorten a hood in a good way . So if anybody else is interested , just let me know .
Regards jotloob