Do you run a SunShade and why or why not? Got into a conversation a couple of weeks ago about running a sunshade. One shooter implied that he never ran a sunshade and thought he could see mirage better without it. Got me wondering why and when we should be running a sunshade. I have been running mine all the time but might try some on vs off comparisons to provide the need or lack there of.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Do you run a SunShade and why or why not.
- Thread starter AllenOne1
- Start date
Maybe I just haven't had the right personal experience, but I've tried sunshades, ARD's etc. I haven't found anything that works befter than great glass. What I mean by this is an inferior optic, with any of these accouterments, still fall short to a great optic with none of them. This has been my experience. Some scopes are really good at not ghosting/flare and others are prone to it.
I would use a sunshade if it was raining, to help keep water of the glass, that's about it.
I am interested to hear though if others have had different experiences I could learn from.
I always run sunshades... It helps cut side-glare directly into your scope lens. High-end scopes with top-end glass aren't as susceptible to it, but all lenses are still reflective and refractive, so it can still wash-out the whole image if it hits just right.
I wonder how much more effective a sunshade would be if you painted the inside with Black 4.0.
I'm the same, run a sunshade on all my magnified optics (other than LPVOs) as they help when shooting into the sun as well as in the rain and I can't think of a downside.
Optics are designed to resolve reflected light off of objects. They have trouble with direct illumination from an intense light source.
Some optics will handle the direct light from an intense/bright light source better than others, but it causes problems you don't need like coma/flare (light from the light source bouncing around/reflecting off the lens elements) which is still bad regardless of whether it's a little or a lot.
Mix more and more white w/a color, is the same as adding more and more light to a color and you "wash it out", or desaturate it.
Add enough illumination to black, and you'll end up w/white.
Some optics will handle the direct light from an intense/bright light source better than others, but it causes problems you don't need like coma/flare (light from the light source bouncing around/reflecting off the lens elements) which is still bad regardless of whether it's a little or a lot.
Mix more and more white w/a color, is the same as adding more and more light to a color and you "wash it out", or desaturate it.
Add enough illumination to black, and you'll end up w/white.
Last edited:
I have a sunshade on all my riflescopes as well as my camera lenses. They protect the (expensive) objective lens element from contacting anything. They also keep out the rain, dust and so on, but it's mainly the contact protection for me. Also, I think the shooter who thought he could see mirage better without it was probably thinking of the heat mirage generated by the hot barrel as there is no way having a sunshade would interfere with mirage downrange. I run a carbon fiber mirage shield on my match rifle, from underneath the sunshade to the tuner at the muzzle.
Just remember if it's an aluminum sunshade (most of 'em are instead of brass) don't tighten too tight.
Next time you go through for sale ads check out folks trying to sell an optic where the front has a dent so you can't thread anything on the front (if they're honest enough to point that out), which jacks the asking price. A sunshade will put that money back in your pocket.
Next time you go through for sale ads check out folks trying to sell an optic where the front has a dent so you can't thread anything on the front (if they're honest enough to point that out), which jacks the asking price. A sunshade will put that money back in your pocket.
Last edited:
Good point! I've had my gun fall over and pop the sunshade out of square. It might have saved the actual scope bell.
I never thought of that. Could be exactly what he was seeing and didn't realize it at the time.Guy was probably seeing mirage off his barrel better without sunshade.
I run my scopes with the shade on all the time. I should call it a rain shade though, since I like to use the range mostly on cold rainy/snowy days since it's less crowded and it keep the rain/snow off the lens.
Shades are there to reduce or eliminate flaring when present. The better multi-coatings go a long ways towards limiting flare through the lens but don't stop it completely. This is where a sun shade would come in. Not necessary if the light isn't causing flaring. I have lenses that cost $12K and use the best materials. They're all provided with detachable sun shades for a reason.
Flaring manifests itself in the form of severely reduced contrast with an almost "whiteout" effect usually when pointed near an intense light source, like the sun, or when the light is hitting the front element at a particular angle to induce flare. Works just like a baseball cap or your hand when trying to see in intense sunlight. If the sun is behind you, a shade has zero effect on image quality unless there are nearby reflective surfaces redirecting light at an angle to induce flare. Doesn't hurt to have them on all the time and can protect the front element from dings as well.
Flaring manifests itself in the form of severely reduced contrast with an almost "whiteout" effect usually when pointed near an intense light source, like the sun, or when the light is hitting the front element at a particular angle to induce flare. Works just like a baseball cap or your hand when trying to see in intense sunlight. If the sun is behind you, a shade has zero effect on image quality unless there are nearby reflective surfaces redirecting light at an angle to induce flare. Doesn't hurt to have them on all the time and can protect the front element from dings as well.
I always use a sunshade mostly to protect the objective lens from anything that might damage it or cause an issue like rain, mud, etc.
I never run a sunshade and can only thing of one time I wished I had one. That lasted about ten minutes until the Sun moved enough to not cause a problem. And I shoot a lot and mostly in the Sun. Then one fellow shooter I know showed us his "sunshade". It was an old school neoprene beer coolie. I was sold and now keep one in my range gear bag for the one time I need a sunshade. Takes up near zero space, weighs near zero and literally cost me zero.
My question: Why don't scope manufactures just make the end of the scope housing longer by default?
My question: Why don't scope manufactures just make the end of the scope housing longer by default?
Just like my sunshade that's on the scope all the time. LOL
I use ARD's. They don't detract enough from image quality under majority of situations to matter and when it does it takes seconds to take off and stow. Better objective lens protection than a sunshade too. Lots of sharp brush and juniper around here and blowing grit. I have had no issues while running honeycomb.
That's true. But can YOUR sunshade keep your drink cold?
I'll take a guess at your question.
This is just conjecture on my part but I would say that manufacturers make the riflescope as long as it needs to be for the optical formula they are putting in the riflescope. Having the housing 3 inches longer would be viewed by many customers as a big issue, especially if they wanted to have something right in front of the objective. As we have seen already, some people never use the sunshade and would not be happy with a riflescope 3 inches longer than needed. Also, since those of us who do use a sunshade do so for protection purposes, the integrated sunshade would defeat that purpose. If I hit something and get a bad ding on the sunshade, I can remove it and get another one. Easy, peasy.
Also, I remove the sunshade when I want to clean the objective lens. The sunshade may protect it from rain, snow, dust and so on, but some will get in regardless. I would hate to clean the objective lens with the sunshade attached, or integrated.
I run a sunshade just to look more tactical
I have one on all my scopes all of the time. Optically there's no downside to it, only upside. It just looks a bit goofy on some.
I use one. Because Arizona!
Only downside is more surface area for wind to affect.
Only downside is more surface area for wind to affect.
I live in Texas. Shoot in New Mexico, Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee..... The sunshade rarely comes off. That UV Index of 12 is nasty.
I do not use sunshades.
I use lens caps, so you either keep the sunshade, with lens caps, or you'd have to take the lens caps off every time you put the sunshade on.
I’ve never seen a bug enough difference, to where I’d leave it on all the time
I use lens caps, so you either keep the sunshade, with lens caps, or you'd have to take the lens caps off every time you put the sunshade on.
I’ve never seen a bug enough difference, to where I’d leave it on all the time
Do your lens caps not fit your sun shade ?
i don’t think you read my post accurately. It answers your question
Of course lens caps would fit the sunshade. I wouldn’t want to 1) switch my lens caps to the sun shade on the rare chance the sun shade would help and 2) I wouldn’t want to use the sun shade all the time…like if I just left the sun shade with lens caps on…. Sun shades look dumb
Bought one in the px that has a useless shade for that reason. "Never been out of the safe".
I let it go as you could see a beauty mark in 1 picture, but not the dent.
It's the only scope I have a sunshade for that isn't installed right now.
This thread is certainly interesting. Some who always use it, some who never use it and some who use it sometimes.
As mentioned above, I am in the never camp.
There are some people in this thread that I have admiration of their opinion, but I really am beginning to wonder it this is a case of "I've always done it, so it must be right" with those that have used them for years.
I say that because I went out and purposely directed multiple optics in the sun, from multiple angles on multiple days, at sun-up, sun-down and everything in between and I never saw a sunshade or ARD do hardly anything at all. Perhaps if the angle was correct to within 1 degree (yeah, I am spit-balling that measurement) it could make the slightest difference. It's like illumination to me, if the scope I have has good glass and is bright, there is about 1 minute in the morning and 1 minute in the evening where illumination is NOT detrimental. (I am not taking into considering the need for illumination on FFP scopes for something like LPVO use)
The scopes that had higher-end glass, simply performed better when facing all angles of the sun, and I do mean better than the lower end scopes WITH sunshades.
As to saying there is no downside, I disagree, the one difference a long sunshade made was reducing light to my eyeball as the sun went down.
With that being said, maybe I need to revisit and revise my testing, but if anything, the best thing I got out of this was the neoprene koozie. Seems like a simple value add that I could carry in a pack just in case I want to give it a shot when encountering some annoying flare/ghosting.
Sharing how you roll shouldn't be taken as it's the only way to do it. I can think I can safely say that many photographers including me will have a different slant on this from taking images which are in fact a record of what the illumination from an intense light source does to the inside of an optic which is all kinds of weird looking shit.
I get my habit of having a lens shade on any optic I have no matter what from wanting to get paid by the client because the image doesn't have any "rainbow-colored rays" fanning out across the frame/diamond shaped patterns of light/flare obliterating parts of the image. If I handed the client an image that was fucked up by all this, I wouldn't get paid.
So yes, scopes are for something else, if whatever come through a scope w/o a sunshade on it satisfies your requirements then that's all that counts.
Other folks don't have my life experience, I get it, that and the fact that we all want different things out of our gear.
It would be a waste of time to tell another man how to use his gear, as opposed to why you use yours the way you do.
Last edited:
It reduces the amount of light coming from sources other than what you want to actually look at, yes. I think @koshkin has been over it, I asked him if there was a downside and got a no. As far as I know, it does not reduce the amount of useful light coming through the scope (i.e. light coming from what your scope it pointed at).
Photographer here, from back in the early 2000's (still shooting FUJIFILM but just for fun), and yes, I did use lens hoods, for the most part the glass on a camera is a bit more exposed than that on a scope however. I've got no issues with anything mentioned in this post, it just has my wheels turning, that's all. My experience of testing scopes for this came after a ghosting issue at a match that likely kept me out of 1st place on the shooting portion, so I went about a week with multiple optics against the sunlight at various hours and angles. Doesn't mean there is isn't something here I missed or can learn.
As for @koshkin saying the light is not reduced with a sunshade, well, I trust him much more than myself, but I have two things that make me skeptical about that:
1.) Removing the sunshade at dusk seems to help extend shooting light a bit in the woods
and more importantly
2.) Going back to cameras, I can set a camera in aperature priority mode, set it up on a tripod without a sunshade and note my shutter speed. I can then put a sunshade on and the camera automatically decreases the shutter speed. This right here seems to be pretty tough to dispute.
Actually the above means the sunshade is doing what it's supposed to do, if it's blocking the unwanted light from an intense lights source which is causing coma/flare whatever. If that's the case in your above example then cutting out the illuminaition from the lightsource is less light but resulting in a cleaned up image (no "comets"/flare/washed out areas in the frame reducing contrast).
You're driving in the direction of the sun just before sunset, the sun starts to hit your windshield, you can't see a thing until you drop the sun visor down blocking your eyes from the sun. You've blocked the light coming from an intense light source (less light) so you can see what you need to see. That process will result in a drop in illumination/exposure and your not being blinded by the sun.
Last edited:
Of course, correct...and it means in a low light situation removing it will allow more light and therefore increase the shutter speed. I wasn't using the example as a reason why they weren't effective, but to show they certainly can reduce the amount of light getting to your eye...or sensor.
Again, and as others indicated, shutter speed/amount of light visible might be detrimental to image quality. Think extraneous light, not focused light.
Not a photog or optical expert by any means....but, with scopes, are we interested in just more light or really the light reflected from our target area. I don't think light coming into the objective at a significant angle to bore is helpful, no?
My home range faces west, so I have to run one after a certain hour.
The answer is yes, clarified by this: What's bad is pointing the camera/scope toward the sun/an intense light source w/that illumination going straight into the lens/scope or you point it at a highly reflective/mirrored surface like a chrome bumper and again the sun bounces off that and does a "number" coming directly through the lens/scope.
The sun is worst case and obvious.
As a PhD holder, I approve this message…
We also cannot forget. I am lazy when it comes to removing the sunshade. It came that way, I will only take it off if the effort requires it. It doesn't add weight or length in any meaningful matter to the scope. Its not like the scope is going to extend past "most" barrels with them. So.... Too lazy to take it off anyways.
Just got off the phone with my buddy @koshkin and he said you should NOT take the sunshade off. The sunshade does not have negative effects because its not in the field of view. It does block errant light so their is no reason to take it off if it is built properly it only benefits the scope.
To keep our 45 minute conversation short, and my takeaway. Leave the sunshade on at all times unless necessary for shipping/storage.
However you can improve on this with the use the f-stops or mirage covers to help with depth of field and to better spot steel plates.
To keep our 45 minute conversation short, and my takeaway. Leave the sunshade on at all times unless necessary for shipping/storage.
However you can improve on this with the use the f-stops or mirage covers to help with depth of field and to better spot steel plates.
Regarding the last sentence about using f-stops, March provides you w/a MD disk.
Go to this link...
The MD disk I have that came w/my March HM 4.5-28x52 will screw into the lens shade or onto the front of the scope cutting illumination by 50%.
50%= 1 stop
Some folks will not want to bother w/this, so why bother w/it.
It'll cut down the light on a bright day, and of course cutting the illumination down 1 stop will increase depth of field.
On a very bright day, there'll be a big difference between ground illumination and the sky, a difference of as much as 16x the light.
Take an exposure of the ground illumination w/an exposure meter on a very bright sunny day, and if it gives you a f-stop of f5.6 and you then measure the sky and that reads out as f22; that difference is 16x the illumination.
F stops double or halve the light, between f5.6 and f22 you've doubled the light 4 times=16x the illumination
Forget the math, remember the important thing which is....
You look through an optic and it includes a lot of the sky, or you're pointing the optic up at something in a tree, the MD disk will knock some of that illumination down and increase depth of field, that's what the disk is for.
Last edited:
Let's add a conditional statement to that: if the sunshade is sized correctly for the scope, it should not have any detrimental impact on the amount of useful (information containing) light that gets into the scope. If it is too long, it can cut block a little bit, but the improvement in image fidelity should still be worth it. It is the same argument will well designed ARDs.
"Sized correctly", for most variable scopes, means that the sunshade should staying out of the FOV at about middle of the mag range or slightly below that.
ILya
"Sized correctly", for most variable scopes, means that the sunshade should staying out of the FOV at about middle of the mag range or slightly below that.
ILya
Guess what I realized today while setting up another rifle? The scope that I have that fights ghosting/flares better than anything else, regardless of price point, magnification level, tube size, erector ratio etc is my S&B Dual CC short dot. It did not occur to me until today when I was setting up a different rifle and had them side by side that this thing basically has its own sunshade built in. I measured the distance from the lens to the front and it is buried nearly 1.5" in there, which is nearly the entire length difference between the two optics and quite deep for a 24mm objective in a 30mm tube.
Turns out, its ability to fend off the glare might have more to do with that than the superior glass.
Similar threads
