To hood or not to hood

[Dionysus]

It is still pretty cold here; cold to me is upper-60s to low 70s, but it is bright and sunny as usual here in Sun Diego. Been working 6 days a week and finally saved enough to order The Sigma 18-200mm OS for a walk around lens. It comes with a hood, which is good. Since this is a super-zoom (on my XTi), I might have a problem with the hood bothering my flash like Frankie mentioned. I don't have a speedlite yet. Since I will be using the built-in flash mostly indoors, I think that "business card" mod works quite well deflecting the flash and my hood shouldn't be in the way.

Thanks all for your comments.

lol i remember living in socal and thinkin 60-70 was cold

 

[Helen B]

... My mentor, has no lenses under $1k and never takes his UV filter off his lens for protection reasons.
...

There's a counter argument that when you are looking for the absolute best optical performance you can achieve without going overboard you probably shouldn't use a filter if you don't need one. You are more likely to notice the effect of a filter on lenses that cost more than $5000 than on lenses that cost less than $50.

A lens hood will rarely cause a problem and so usually is either a benefit or has no effect. The benefit can be in preventing accidental marks on the lens or filter surface, and in cutting down on stray light. A marked filter is a marked optical surface until it is cleaned. Stray light does not have to be the direct rays from an obvious light source.

I started out by playing it safe and using both a protective filter and a lens hood almost all the time. As I gained practical experience I learned of those occasions when a hood was more of a hazard than a help and a filter was necessary (climbing, skiing and mountaineering, for example). Most of the rest of the time I now use a hood as standard, and don't use filters except when required for their effect.

Best,
Helen