a reconsideration of lens hoods

I use lens hoods on all my lenses, and have done so since I first caught the photography bug. But I'm not a pro--just a competent enthusiast--and I'm starting to wonder how necessary hoods really are.

I know people are attached to their hoods, and indeed it has been drummed into me by experts that hoods help 1) protect the front element; 2) avoid lens flare; and 3) improve contrast/color saturation by keeping out stray light.

As for number one, I'm extremely careful with my gear anyway, and don't bang my camera or lens into things. As for number 2, I've experimented without hoods and don't experience lens flare as a problem (or only very rarely and in particular circumstances). As for number three, I'm willing to believe it but I've never seen proof that it is so.

The downside of hoods, for me, is that they make the lens look bigger and more intimidating (and thus have an effect on candid opportunities), they take up room in my bag, and they require yet an extra step (brief though it is) in setting up to shoot.

Does anyone want to try and persuade me that hoods actually aid picture quality? If you can, I'll continue to use them happily. Otherwise, I might just start thinking of them as another subtle way for the camera companies to get a few more bucks out of us.

Thanks for your opinions, Josh

Hey jabber,

a Lens hood will never improve a picture, but it can prevent it from going horribly bad unless you love flare. Lens flare is a reality and you will encounter it often if you shoot often enough at mixed times in the day.

Personally I only use them against lens flare and they are an absolute necessity imo. If you don't have one then you need to use your hand to block the light.

I've heard the argument against protective lens filters, and it has merit imo. But No pro I know works without a lens hood ....

So, Marko, let's assume you're shooting in an environment in which lens flare is highly unlikely--in this case, is there any advantage to the hood regarding image quality?

Cheers.

Quote:

---

So, Marko, let's assume you're shooting in an environment in which lens flare is highly unlikely--in this case, is there any advantage to the hood regarding image quality?

Cheers.

---

Nope, no advantage whatsoever EXCEPT that ya never know when any light can cause flare.

So for instance, for years I shot weddings. In the day I always used lens hoods, but at night I'll often take it off. EXCEPT when the video guy is working near me because then there is a good chance that his light can affect my pics with flare.

But to make it crystal clear - if the chance of lens flare is zero, then aside from safety issues (safer to bump a lens hood than a lens) I don't see the advantage. Hope that helps.

anyone else have an opinion on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

anyone else have an opinion on this?

---

I agree with you marko; I've seen flare in situations where I didn't expect it at all. Better safe than sorry. As far as taking up room in your bag, I find when they're turned around back on the lens, the extra footprint is minimal, and as far as the extra step of mounting it, if time is that critical, skip it, and get the shot, BUT if you have the two seconds, mount the hood. You'll never sorry that you did, but you might be that you didn't!

All right, well at least you've freed me up (in my own mind) to do without the hood in situations where flare is unlikely to be an issue. (And I've read that crop bodies like my 40D's are less susceptible to flare in any case--true?) Thanks for your advice.

Quote:

---

(And I've read that crop bodies like my 40D's are less susceptible to flare in any case--true?)

---

This is NOT true at all in my experience and I have experienced flare many times with my crop body. Flare is a product of light hitting a lens at a certain angle. I can't see how the camera or its sensor makes much of a difference. It's all about the lens. Some lenses handle it better than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

This is NOT true at all in my experience and I have experienced flare many times with my crop body. Flare is a product of light hitting a lens at a certain angle. I can't see how the camera or its sensor makes much of a difference. It's all about the lens. Some lenses handle it better than others.

---

There is a belief that because of their narrower FoV, lenses on crop bodies are less susceptible to flare in the way that [generally] long glass is less flare-prone than wide glass. True? Don't know; you'd need someone who knows a lot more optical theory than I to say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

This is NOT true at all in my experience and I have experienced flare many times with my crop body. Flare is a product of light hitting a lens at a certain angle. I can't see how the camera or its sensor makes much of a difference. It's all about the lens. Some lenses handle it better than others.

---

Interesting--good to know. Thanks.

I barely use my lens hood. I just don't like it on there for some reason. I'll pull it out midday and I know the sun is going to alter my shots but never use it unless I feel like I have to..or remember too :p

Just one thing to add, lens hoods make you look more pro since long lenses either intimidate or impress people:D:D.
In my case, these kind of impressions make me more nereous thinking peoples expectation will be higher.
Anyways, if you want to MAKE cheap lens hoods on your own. check this out

http://www.lenshoods.co.uk

I just read that article and it's cool and all but a)no self-respecting photographer is going to put a paper hood on his 7000$ lens and b) I have not seen a Nikon lens that did not come with a lens hood and c) a quick perusual of eBay and I see lens hoods are anywhere from about 10$ to 40$. Not exactly bank breaking prices. :)

Okay raiven points well taken.
But its very different where I live in. No e-commerce :eek: and no one with 7000$ lens :eek: I know of around here.

But again I cannot yet blame my bad pictures for the paper lens hood as I haven't tried it. ;) but appreciated that I can get a solution for my lens hood woes.:D:D

You can also use your hand to shield the lens from stray light in a pinch...but getting a real lens hood is highly recommended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raiven

I just read that article and it's cool and all but a)no self-respecting photographer is going to put a paper hood on his 7000$ lens and b) I have not seen a Nikon lens that did not come with a lens hood and c) a quick perusual of eBay and I see lens hoods are anywhere from about 10$ to 40$. Not exactly bank breaking prices. :)

---

lol, yes this may be getting a bit off topic, but it's curious how you see these sites, posts, or blogs with the MacGuyvers of photography, like how to make a Gary Fong Lightsphere out of an empty margarine tub, etc. when most of the accessories they have created are in the under $30 category from many (3rd party) sources anyway. And juxtapose that against the self-professed newbies on other popular photo forums posting: should I buy the 300/2.8 lens or upgrade to the D700?

I also find the hoods clumsy at times, and I understand what you mean Jabber about their possible down-side for street photography. I also believe in the protection they offer, so I guess for me it's another one of those situational choices we have to make. I do have one retractable rubber hood that threads into the filter threads of yours lens. I guess that makes it a little more portable, and only extends the look the lens when it needs to be in use. And a few of my lenses also have built in telescopic hoods which is really cool. The worst is my Nikon 85/1.8 which comes with a solid metal, not-petal type, THREADED hood. That one drives me nuts as there's almost nowhere I can put it without it potentially scratching the lens (body, not glass) when it's in my bag. Talk about clunky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yisehaq

Just one thing to add, lens hoods make you look more pro since long lenses either intimidate or impress people:D:D.
In my case, these kind of impressions make me more nereous thinking peoples expectation will be higher.
Anyways, if you want to MAKE cheap lens hoods on your own. check this out

http://www.lenshoods.co.uk

---

I love DIY. Very interesting.
Thanks for sharing !!!

[QUOTE=F8&Bthere;28932And a few of my lenses also have built in telescopic hoods which is really cool. The worst is my Nikon 85/1.8 which comes with a solid metal, not-petal type, THREADED hood. That one drives me nuts as there's almost nowhere I can put it without it potentially scratching the lens (body, not glass) when it's in my bag. Talk about clunky.[/QUOTE]

All of the metal Nikkor lens hoods I have can be reversed on the lens and clipped into the front threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epatsellis

All of the metal Nikkor lens hoods I have can be reversed on the lens and clipped into the front threads.

---

Not this one, unfortunately, it actually threads into the filter threads so when reversed there is nothing on the hood or the lens that can grab it or hold it in place.

Depends on what your shooting or it does for me anyway.

If I'm shooting landscapes I can't use a lens hood. No way the EW-83E works on the following;
EF-S 10-22
Hoya CP
Cokin Z-PRO Holder
Singhray 4x6 GND

However, my 24-70 L f/2.8 and 70-200 L f /2.8 IS are used most of the time with respective hoods.

If you use polarizers (or any other screw on) they are a pain

If you use Grad ND they are a non-starter

I find fixing flare pretty easy since I always carry a wide brim hat and can use that if I need to.

The one area where I do wish I had one when I dont is when there is lite mist, rain, or snow, a good hood will keep the front element dry and allow a lot more shooting vs. wiping.

So my rule is, keep it in my larger utility pack, and if conditions warrant attach, else leave it in the utility pack. This assumes you arent hiking any distance, else I just add it on (if I think I will need) and deal with the irritation)

I often thought a collapsable telscopic hood would be awesome to avoid or at least mitigate the pitfalls (push it in when not needed, pull out when nessecar) but the mfg's dont seem to be interested in
useability on these things.

Todd

here's a perfect example of a built in hood being not quite enough (in this case a Sigma 14mm). This was a quick grab shot at ankle height while racing to the car, those fearsome clouds let loose a hellish torrent about 45 seconds after shooting this. Had I the time, I would have shaded the globe shaped front element better.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2504/...a39d381f_o.jpg

so here's a newbie question about lens hoods:

what is the difference between ones that look like a cone and those that look like a flower? does it matter?

The flower petal ones work better. They 'hug' the edges of the frame and protect better against flares. However, in order to work, the front element must not rotate! If it does, the hood will get into the picture. So lenses which turn the front element to focus usually have cone type hoods. It allows rotation without the hood entering the field of view... :)

In general one sees the 'flower petal' type on zoom lenses with a wide angle end. The cone ones are generally seen on fixed wide angle lenses (or sometimes wide angle zooms), and tube shaped ones on fixed telephoto lenses or telephoto zooms. Think about the angle of view the lens is capable of and then you'll see how they match up in shape. I have quite a collection, but often forget to use them.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/...e82a5fc0c4.jpg