Lens Hood

[anubis404]

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.

Don't get the idea that I don't think lens hoods are helpful. I just don't think they're necessary for every day use. I don't know every photographer on this board, but I don't usually stand on the sidelines of football games or take pictures near the edge of the grand canyon.

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.

There was an amazon link posted to third party hoods. Besides, I don't know any 50mms that can mount a lens hood.

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.

That's your fault for not even bothering to look at the picture after you take it. Most of us shoot digital, don't we?

Don't get me wrong, lens hoods do provide protection and help with lens flare, I just think they're a bit excessive for every day use. Its like walking down the street in full football pads. I'm sure it provides extra protection, and it might save your life. Yet you don't see people walking down the street in football pads. There are times to wear football pads (lens hood), I just think a filter is more appropriate for every day use. Not every one of us is toting L glass and dodging 200lb athletes when we go out to shoot.

Just a thought.

 

[anubis404]

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.

Please explain to me how a superficial accessory on a camera compares to the most crucial part of an aircraft, oh enlightened one.

 

[usayit]

I haven't read the entire thread but Gryph's response reminded me of my very first job as a student engineer working on multi-million dollar servers. I was soOOOoo scared to touch them. One of my mentors sat me down and said:

"If you haven't broken something by the time you finish this session, then you are not working hard enough!"

I shoot with fairly expensive single focal length lenses and do switch lenses. I'll be the first to admit that I have dropped a few. When I do, I get upset, remind myself of my first job, and get over it. The last was a lens that was barely 2 weeks old...GRRRRrr.. filter ring is shot, aperture ring is stiffer, and focus barrel now has play. Ah well... it still produces wonderful photos.

I use high quality filters... no rear or front caps. Lenses live either in a shoulder bag in their own compartment or on my belt in individual pouches. I need the ability to switch lenses with one hand quickly without fussing with caps and such. Front elements do get dirty and I like to clean them with whatever I have (shirt, tie etc) without having to dig around for a lens cloth or worry about scratching. I have never had a problem with IQ. If flare is a possibility (and the hood does help), it takes two seconds to remove the filter.

As for hoods... get them and use them. Small price.


[EDIT]
BTW.. in my case of a dropped lens. The filter did save the lens from further damage. Filter ring took the brunt and the filter glass was smashed. Absolutely no damage to lens elements.

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

Please explain to me how a superficial accessory on a camera compares to the most crucial part of an aircraft, oh enlightened one.

Isn't it obvious to you by now that the hood is not a 'superficial accessory'? Its a CRITICAL COMPONENT OF HOW THE LENS OPERATES.

Use your head to make the comparison idiot, im sure most understood my point, including you. Theres no need to be rude when im trying to clarify an obvious mistake that youre making.

What will a hood give you that a filter won't?

That comment there should have really stopped any one from taking your points seriously.

 

[usayit]

question i have regarding hoods on zooms...

Are the hoods really just effective at the widest focal length?

 

[manaheim]

question i have regarding hoods on zooms...

Are the hoods really just effective at the widest focal length?

That was kind of my understanding...

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

question i have regarding hoods on zooms...

Are the hoods really just effective at the widest focal length?

The hoods on zooms are engineered to give you optimum performance no matter what focal length you choose.

 

[usayit]

that is usually the response I get when I ask... I get one person saying one way and another saying the other.

I am not sure but my common sense is saying yes. I don't see how a solid (non adjustable) hood can accommodate the entire focal range without vignette.

 

[RyanMTaylor]

This thread needs a bucket of ice water.

 

[table1349]

that is usually the response I get when I ask... I get one person saying one way and another saying the other.

I am not sure but my common sense is saying yes. I don't see how a solid (non adjustable) hood can accommodate the entire focal range without vignette.

The hood on a zoom is engineered with the same build in problems that the zoom has itself. So no, it will not be totally efficient across the whole range. The hood is a compromise just as the image quality of a zoom, even an L zoom lacks when compared to an L prime in the same range. But it is still a lot better than nothing.

 

[anubis404]

Isn't it obvious to you by now that the hood is not a 'superficial accessory'? Its a CRITICAL COMPONENT OF HOW THE LENS OPERATES.

Use your head to make the comparison idiot, im sure most understood my point, including you. Theres no need to be rude when im trying to clarify an obvious mistake that youre making.

It would be nice if we could have an adult conversation, and avoid immature comments like "idiot".

That comment there should have really stopped any one from taking your points seriously.

I say the same of you. You claim a lens cannot function without a hood, just as an aircraft cannot function without wings. The lame analogy alone should discredit you from giving photographic advice.

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

usayit i had a similar question and took it to a camera store. I was asking about how much more effective the fixed lens hood on the EF 24-70 F2.8L was compared to a regular move-with-the-front element one. He told me that the results are essentially the same because of the way the latter lens hoods are designed... thats what im going on. Prior to that i was under the same assumption as manaheim.

 

[usayit]

Cool.. thanks for the answer.

...just as the image quality of a zoom, even an L zoom lacks when compared to an L prime in the same range.

That I understand... used to shoot with a boat load of L zooms and I always still found myself gravitating towards even the non-L primes. All are tools with their proper place.

 

[anubis404]

This thread needs a bucket of ice water.

Either that or at least some posters being taught some manners. Calling people "idiot" does not display intelligence.

 

[usayit]

It would be nice if we could have an adult conversation, and avoid immature comments like "idiot".

Tried and tried in the 5 years I've been here... it just gets worse as the years go by. Try to diffuse it and they just PM you instead... (worst from a "highly" regarded individual here.. which I used to have respect for and no longer). Best to take it as it is and move on.

Anyone up for some pictures of their dinner tonight?