Lens Hood

anubis404 · Nov 16, 2008

Eh, to me hoods are more of something that looks cool. I guess they could be useful for outdoor shooting, but a filter will protect the lens just fine, and all hoods usually do is look badass or take up space.

RyanMTaylor · Nov 16, 2008

I had a hood for my 10-20 Sigma and it worked fantastically. I ran tests of the same shot with and without the hood and it eliminated lens flare completely. the other shot had crazy lens flare.

dhilberg · Nov 17, 2008

Using filters can increase the likelihood of flare. Especially cheap, non-coated or even single(mono)-coated ones. If you're going to use a filter for permanent protection, make sure it's multi-coated and of high quality.

There's no reason not to use a hood. I use mine all the time. It helps with lens flare, helps protect the front element, helps keep dust/rain/mist/etc. off.

JayPearson · Nov 17, 2008

What i will probably end up doing is buying one for the tele for sure, first. Then i will most likely buy one for the 50mm after, seeing that a very thin piece of glass(filter) may not be able to withstand an impact that the hood would be capable of taking.

Thanks for all the reply.

Chewbecca · Nov 17, 2008

About a month ago, I had borrowed my friend's 85mm f1.8 lens. It came with a hood.
THANK GOD.
I was out walking, taking pictures, slipped on a pile of wet leaves, fell and the lens took the brunt of the fall. That lens hood saved that lens' life.

Use lens hoods.

Now, if someone could please link me to where I could get a lens hood for my 50mm f1.8, I'd greatly appreciate it. I can never seem to find any.

kundalini · Nov 17, 2008

Chewbecca said:
Now, if someone could please link me to where I could get a lens hood for my 50mm f1.8, I'd greatly appreciate it. I can never seem to find any.

Rubber

Metal (made for the 35mm lens, but it also fits my 50mm)

Chewbecca · Nov 17, 2008

kundalini said:
Rubber

Metal (made for the 35mm lens, but it also fits my 50mm)

Thank you!!!!
Silly question: Which do you think would work better in actually protecting the lens in case of another stupid, klutzy fall on my part?
I know, that should be a no-brainer, but my brain is still waking up and I cannot determine which would most likely protect it better.
The rubber because it would soften the fall/impact by bouncing (maybe?), or the metal because it is harder and would take the impact.

The hood on the 85mm was a metal one, and it protected that lens like a charm when I fell.

matt-l · Nov 17, 2008

anubis404 said:
Eh, to me hoods are more of something that looks cool. I guess they could be useful for outdoor shooting, but a filter will protect the lens just fine, and all hoods usually do is look badass or take up space.

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.

JayPearson · Nov 17, 2008

Chewbecca said:
About a month ago, I had borrowed my friend's 85mm f1.8 lens. It came with a hood.
THANK GOD.
I was out walking, taking pictures, slipped on a pile of wet leaves, fell and the lens took the brunt of the fall. That lens hood saved that lens' life.

I'm pretty convinced.

JayPearson · Nov 17, 2008

matt-l said:
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.

So i've become to realized.

ksmattfish · Nov 17, 2008

If you asked the people that designed your lens they would advise you to use the hood. It's an integral part of the lens, and improves performance. The only reason the lens hood comes off is to make the lens more compact.

Lens hoods are like seat belts; if you haven't been using one it seems like an extra step to put it on, but eventually you just start doing it without thinking.

table1349 · Nov 17, 2008

anubis404 said:
What will a hood give you that a filter won't?

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. He vowed to never be without a hood again and never to count on a filter for protection. The same fall with the lens hood on would in all likely hood not caused any damage other than some scuffing to the hood.

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.

JayPearson · Nov 17, 2008

gryphonslair99 said:
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.

Couldn't have said it better, makes perfect since.

patrickt · Nov 17, 2008

I took each lens, a lens hood, and shot pictures in the late afternoon towards the sun. I prefer not using a lens hood because I like using a lens cap. Using a lens cap, even center pinch, with a hood is a pain. After taking my pictures and looking at them, I always use the hood with my 12-24 and 16-45 and hardly ever on the others.

But, form your own opinion by taking some shots with and without. I doesn't take long.

JayPearson · Nov 17, 2008

patrickt said:
I took each lens, a lens hood, and shot pictures in the late afternoon towards the sun. I prefer not using a lens hood because I like using a lens cap. Using a lens cap, even center pinch, with a hood is a pain. After taking my pictures and looking at them, I always use the hood with my 12-24 and 16-45 and hardly ever on the others.

But, form your own opinion by taking some shots with and without. I doesn't take long.

I think that it would definately be safe to have them just in case, for sure.