Lens Hood

[reg]

Eh, to me hoods are more of something that looks cool.

PROTIP: They aren't.

 

[lockwood81]

Why wouldn't you put a hood on is the question....

 

[patrickt]

"Why wouldn't you put a hood on is the question...."

For me, because using a lens cap with a lens hood is a pain.

 

[STICKMAN]

I have clear UV filters on all my lenses for protection. While the hood can provide additional protection for the lens, the main purpose is to prevent reflected light from creating problems like lens glare. This is primarily a problem outdoors, but occasionally can happen indoors. If you plan to use your 50mm indoors, you probably don't need a hood for it.

From what I've read and been told doing such is a waste as most of todays sensors already provide there own uv protection. It also is not a good practice unless using top of the line filters other wise you just took the great glass on your pricey lens and took it down to being cheap do to the cheap glass the filter was made out of. Use a hood or dont use anything.

Hood are also great for when shooting through glass windows and such. I just place the hood tight to the glass and perfect no glare. Found that tip here on TPF........

"Why wouldn't you put a hood on is the question...."

For me, because using a lens cap with a lens hood is a pain.

You could use a flexble type hood the can fold back onto ones self or flex when needed. Plus most lens allow you to spin your lens hood backwards onto the lens while not in use, thus allowing you normal access to place a cap on.

 

[anubis404]

You could not be more wrong in everything you just stated. A hood is not used to look "Badass" and it won't do what a UV Filter will do. Even without the hood you will get lens flare from a UV. a hood will eliminate that. Hoods are not meant to look Badass or meant to take up space. they are meant to help your shots from getting lens flare.

I don't believe so. Lens hoods may prevent lens flare, but I already said that, and it doesn't do it significantly. UV filters protect from dust, dirt, scratches, and other kinds of crap. All a lens hood will protect you from is banging the lens on something, and even in that case it don't work if that something is skinnier than the opening of the hood. Hoods also interfere with filters, and some can be frustrating to store. In my opinion, a UV filter is much better in terms of protection than a hood. And in all my outdoor shooting, I've only had one lens flare problem. Hoods can take up too much space for just that. Its a simple accessory, and definitely not a necessity.

 

[ANDS!]

I don't believe so.

You are wrong though.

Lens hoods may prevent lens flare, but I already said that, and it doesn't do it significantly.

What does it better?

And in all my outdoor shooting, I've only had one lens flare problem.

We often confuse personal anecdotes with FACT.

Hoods can take up too much space for just that.

Screw the lens on BACKWARDS.

 

[anubis404]

Real protection, not just the feeling of protection. On one of the forums (I believe it was Photo Camel but I'm not sure) someone recently posted a personal example of why a hood is protection and a filter is not. When he dropped the lens it broke the filter. After he took the pieces of broke filter out and removed the filter ring, that was now very tightly wedged on the lens, he found that the glass from the filter scratched the front element of the lens quite significantly. He also discovered that the filter ring had bent the threads on the lens barrel as well. Lens ruined.

That might be true, however how many times have you dropped a lens? I know I haven't. A filter provides more practical protection from dust, small bumps, dirt, and scratches. I doubt many photographers walk around full on dropping their lenses.

And even so, were talking about screw on lens hoods, which means the filter thread will be ruined anyway.

The second problem with filters for protection is the filter themselves. Let me guess, this is the quality of filter you are probably talking about. This is what most people spend and get.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/72715-REG/Tiffen_58UVP_58mm_UV_Protector_Glass.html
Like everything in life, you get what you pay for.

This is what they should be looking at if they want any kind of filter.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/156799-REG/Heliopan_705886_58mm_Digital_Glass_Filter.html
or at least this.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/180664-REG/B_W__58_mm_UV_415_UV_Blocking.html
Quality matters. Especially when you are putting a piece of glass in front of a lens.

Buying cheap filters is like putting Walmart's cheapest tires on a Lamborgini and wondering why you don't get decent performance. Me I own a lot of L glass. I protect it with a lens hood at all times and feel quite confident of it. I also didn't pay the money that an L lens costs for the quality only to degrade it with a piece of glass that is not needed. The only filters I own and use are Circular Polarizers and Netural Densitity filters and only when needed.

If I owned L class, I would too. I do use a hood, however IMO they are best used in combination. If I had to choose, I would definitely go with a filter.

 

[anubis404]

You are wrong though.

Great answer. Bravo.

What does it better?

I'm asking if lens flare is really that much of a problem, on a 50mm lens no less, that would warrant the ordering of a lens hood.

We often confuse personal anecdotes with FACT.

Please quote me where I said anything was "fact" if you would be so kind.

Screw the lens on BACKWARDS.

And I'm sure that is a great idea. Especially in the case of hoods that go outward.

 

[ANDS!]

I'm asking if lens flare is really that much of a problem, on a 50mm lens no less, that would warrant the ordering of a lens hood.

You're asking if a lens hood has a valid use on a SINGLE lens. If I narrowed the use of a piece of equipment down to a single item, I could limit its usability as well.

Please quote me where I said anything was "fact" if you would be so kind.

That might be true, however how many times have you dropped a lens? I know I haven't.

That might be true, however how many times have you dropped a lens? I know I haven't.

You are using anecdotal evidence here to lend credence to your general belief. The oft-used "Well it hasn't happened to ME, so I don't see why its a problem for YOU" defense.

And I'm sure that is a great idea. Especially in the case of hoods that go outward.

Take the lens hood. Turn the petals TOWARDS the camera. Screw the lens on in the OPPOSITE direction you would use if the petals were faced AWAY from the camera. Profit.

"Space" should not be a consideration for whether one brings out a lens hood.

 

[kundalini]

I don't believe so. Lens hoods may prevent lens flare, but I already said that, and it doesn't do it significantly. UV filters protect from dust, dirt, scratches, and other kinds of crap. All a lens hood will protect you from is banging the lens on something, and even in that case it don't work if that something is skinnier than the opening of the hood. Hoods also interfere with filters, and some can be frustrating to store. In my opinion, a UV filter is much better in terms of protection than a hood. And in all my outdoor shooting, I've only had one lens flare problem. Hoods can take up too much space for just that. Its a simple accessory, and definitely not a necessity.

I suggest you re-read this entire thread. Then search more. You (and a couple others) that cite that hoods are a PITA haven't a clue on how much they can protect and how much lesser filters can take away from your image. If they take up too much space, buy a larger bag. If YOU think hoods interfere with filters, then perhaps YOU should consider YOUR techniques. The only possible filter I can think of that would "interfere" is a circular polarizer. This is only inhibited by lack of practice. My CPL is a slim B+W and I can rotate it with ease and avoid fingerprints even with the very deep hood on my 70-200mm. Sorry, but I disagree with you. Unless I'm at a dirt track (or similar) where debris is likely to fly into my front element, I do not use a "protective" filter. I can garauntee you that when you have several thousand dollars worth of lenses, you too, will be mindfull of what you carry in your hands. The hood is priceless.

 

[anubis404]

I suggest you re-read this entire thread. Then search more. You (and a couple others) that cite that hoods are a PITA haven't a clue on how much they can protect and how much lesser filters can take away from your image. If they take up too much space, buy a larger bag. If YOU think hoods interfere with filters, then perhaps YOU should consider YOUR techniques. The only possible filter I can think of that would "interfere" is a circular polarizer. This is only inhibited by lack of practice. My CPL is a slim B+W and I can rotate it with ease and avoid fingerprints even with the very deep hood on my 70-200mm. Sorry, but I disagree with you. Unless I'm at a dirt track (or similar) where debris is likely to fly into my front element, I do not use a "protective" filter. I can garauntee you that when you have several thousand dollars worth of lenses, you too, will be mindfull of what you carry in your hands. The hood is priceless.

Maybe, but I suggest you reread my post. I've already addressed all of this and responded.

 

[kundalini]

Okay, I can see that you have your back up. Do as you wish and think as you like. It's become a mute point. Peace.

 

[table1349]

=anubis404;1443018]That might be true, however how many times have you dropped a lens? I know I haven't. A filter provides more practical protection from dust, small bumps, dirt, and scratches. I doubt many photographers walk around full on dropping their lenses.

What does a pencil cost these days? Fifty cents? Ever drop one of those? It always amazes me that people can drop, bump or knock off something as small and simple as a pencil and figure they can completely control every situation with expensive equipment or vehicles. Get back with me in 30 years and tell me how that all worked out for you.

In 30+ years of shooting from the bottom of the Grand Canyon to the tops of some of the highest peaks in North America and some still very remote places I have not only witnessed lenses and cameras being dropped, bumped and banged around, I have done the same thing. Stuff happens in the real world. With my main form of photography the last few years being sports at the college level I have also learned that there are times you just have to get out of the way of large linebackers, receives, corners and running backs. There is not a whole lot of time to pack your gear and then stroll away. It can be a mad dash to live sometimes. Shooting on the sidelines is not quite the same as taking snapshots from row Z.

And even so, were talking about screw on lens hoods, which means the filter thread will be ruined anyway.

No were are talking about buying the manufactures designed OEM hood for each specific lens. Not one of them is a screw on lens hood. Nor are they the rubber fold down jobs. Aftermarket hood for the most part are a joke with the exception of the OEM rip off hoods that are direct copies of the manufactures hood at a cheaper price. My hoods are the proper OEM piece of equipment designed specifically for the lens they will go on. The only lens I do not always use the OEM hood on is my 400mm f2.8. Some events require a rubber hood for player safety. I have a proper sized, proper length of rubber plumbing boot that I use at those venues. Other wise I am using the $600 OEM hood.

If I owned L class, I would too. I do use a hood, however IMO they are best used in combination. If I had to choose, I would definitely go with a filter.

Me I choose to go with the best image quality rather than a false sense of protection. I don't put cling wrap on my car's windshield cause I don't want to have to wash it and I don't put unnecessary glass in front of my lens. Especially cheap glass. If I didn't own L glass or quality glass I would definately not be putting some piece of cheap glass in front of it. Image quality can be the difference between "that's a nice picture" and "Wow!"

As for the question of will a hood on a 50mm lens really control lens flair. Ask yourself that question when you blow a once in a lifetime shot because of lens flare all to save a few bucks or not have to put the lens hood on.

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

Hoods are not only for protection they improve image quality as well (helps improve contrast), i havent seen anyone mention that crucial point yet. And Anubis in the world of photography arguing that a hood is simply meant to 'look badass' or that a UV filter can be used in its place, or that its simply useless otherwise (which is what ive taken from your remarks) is like arguing that a plane doesnt need its wings. You should stop.

 

[manaheim]

Kind of a useful example is this pic...

You'll notice the walkway there is very well illuminated... by a light pole that just happens to be about 4 pixels outside of the left edge of the frame. Without the lens hood that light was causing some MAJOR issues in that shot... WITH the hood on it had absolutely zero effect.

I have, on occasion, forgotten to put my hood on and had to use my hand to block out some erroneous light source.

It's definitely very handy to have them on occasion, and they do also help vignetting effects.