Lense Hood for Canon 50mm f/1.8...worth it?

[bobaab]

That's basically my question...how much would having a lense hood make a difference? I really havent had experience with a lense hood, so I dont know how it makes a difference in photo's. If anyone can tell me general advice, please do so! If anyone can give me advice specifically on the lense hood for the Canon 50mm f/1.8, that would be even better! Thanks in advance

 

[LWW]

I always use them. They will help keep off to the side light sources from creating flare in your photos. They will also be the first line of defense keeping things from hitting the glass if you are in the woods, or a heavy crowd, or ever drop something.

They are also pretty cheap. There are aftermarket closes also which work quite well which are even cheaper.

LWW

 

[Big Mike]

Go out in the sun and look through the viewfinder & lens with the sun hitting the lens but not in the scene. The hold your hand over the lens like a hood, to block the sun. Notice how the image through the lens changes...it should seem a little dimer to you but it will have more contrast. That's the idea of a hood, to keep stray light from getting into the lens and causing a loss of contrast, saturation, sharpness etc.

 

[JIP]

Lens hoods are very important especially when shooting outside in the sun even though you may not see a glare in your viewfinder alot of times it still may affect your image

 

[stumpfoot]

What about the differnt designs? I have seen the solid round ones and ones that look like flowers, is one betterthen the other?

 

[Big Mike]

What about the differnt designs? I have seen the solid round ones and ones that look like flowers, is one betterthen the other?

The more area around the lens that is covered...the more effective the hood will be. However, if it's too deep or small...it will cause vignetting. The 'petal' style hoods are made for specific lenses and cover as much as they can, without getting in the way.

For my 50mm F1.8, I have a cheap collapsible rubber hood that I got for $5.

 

[Don Simon]

Ditto, I paid £1 for an old Nikon lens hood and it fits any lens with a 49mm filter thread, which to me is better than one which only fits on one lens and costs 10-20x as much. As long as it fits and does the job.

Now my Tokina and Tamron zooms, and even my own-brand kit lens, all came with their own lens hoods. The one on the kit lens even has a little removeable tab so I can rotate filters easily... yet no hood with the primes. Pay more and get less eh :|

 

[DeepSpring]

I have the same rubber style hood Mike was talking about on my 50mm. It's cheap and can't hurt to have. No reason to not get it.

 

[rmh159]

The thing about a lens hood is when it's on it doesn't do any noticable affect to the pic. It's not like you'll look at the pic and think "Ahhhhh that lens hood affect was beautiful." but if you take a shot with the sun just out of frame without the lens hood you'll see pretty quickly how a shot can go to hell without it.

Keep in mind also that you can't Photoshop out a lens flare. If it's there you're basically f-ed unless by some chance it works with the pic.

On the subject of lens flare isn't it odd that as photographers we struggle like mad to avoid it and then Photoshop has an entire affect section dedicated to adding it back in? I guess control is the issue but it's still a head-scratcher.

 

[Pixel9ine]

I have the same rubber style hood Mike was talking about on my 50mm. It's cheap and can't hurt to have. No reason to not get it.

Same here. I know Canon has a specific hood for this lens (and I've got dedicated hoods for my 17-85, 85/1.8 and 70-200), but the little 52mm rubber ones work great if needed.

Think, too, that the front element of the 50mm 1.8 sits pretty far back in the lens barrel, so flare is not as big as issue on this lens to begin with.