Len's Hoods

Ricky91t

Just thinking if people use these all the time?
I got my ET-60 hood today from ebay and i dont think its ever gonna leave my camera now.I like the fact if i drop the lens there is less of a chance the glass will get damaged!and i dont have a uv filter

Do you always use your lens hoods?

Paulw

I always have the lens hood on. For protection and also to stop glare on the lens.

Especially useful for the longer range lenses.

Roen

Always always always.
Check out here for every lens hood under the sun free. Just get a black marker and off you go

leinsterman

I'd like to add to Roen's comment ...

Always, always, always !

Fajitas!

Always, always always.

DaireQuinlan

Without fail ... all the time. What I want to know is who these anonymous nay-sayers are who've voted no on the poll ! We could probably tell by examining peoples flickr streams for overall lack of contrast, sun spots, and veiling flare in their pics

deRanged

I voted no. I don't usually use lens hoods, unless there's sunshine (or rain) that I think might cause a problem.

That said, I tend to use cheap lenses and now that I finally have one expensive one, I'm a bit more careful.

ThOnda

Mostly, but I have brilliant lens with excellent UV filter, so I don't have any problems with light falling on the lens.
I have rubber one that is very easy to transport.

elderlemon

always always always .... but not only for IQ - My brother had my nice 40D and my lovely 17-55 2.8 slung over his shoulder and scraped it (the lens) against a pebble dash wall!!! If I hadn't got the lens hood on there would have been lots of tears!

DaireQuinlan

elderlemon wrote: »

If I hadn't got the lens hood on there would have been lots of tears!

His I hope ? :pac:

Masada

other than in direct sunlight i never use it., although a lot of my shots are night time ones so thats probably why.,

nilhg

+1 fro always,always,always. Asuming the hood came with the lens, in normal use,I can think of no good reason not to use it.

Thirdfox

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Without fail ... all the time. What I want to know is who these anonymous nay-sayers are who've voted no on the poll ! We could probably tell by examining peoples flickr streams for overall lack of contrast, sun spots, and veiling flare in their pics

Have a look in mine then

I voted no - not always - there are appropriate times when you should use it and other times when you don't have to.

I use as required.

Borderfox

Glass costs so much compared to how cheap a lens hood is. I always use one except with the likes of the 100mm macro and the 50mm 1.4.

Rojo

Should have one on all my lenses but I don't. Only on the 70 - 300 that I never use.. :-/

Lionsden

No cons for using one, only advantages, so yeah, I always have one on.

Fionn

Always, always, always ! always, always! always, always! have the marks on the hoods to prove me right too!!!
keeps out flare etc. always on macro too coz you can get too close to the subject and graze the lens
the only lens i didn't have a hood for was my nifty fifty sadly sold on now!!

quilmore

I've generally won't use one unless I'm shooting knowing the sun will come in the way
but so many of you saying "always" makes me thing
I'll do something, next time out I'll keep them all the time on and see what they feel
my 70-200's hood is too big to be always on I'd say, but I'll give it a try before taking a decision

SOL

Well for a start I don't even have one for my 80-200, but I would only sometimes use one on my 100mm macro, I usually have it on my 18-50 but I have a 24-70 sigma that is now out of action and aside from the fact that the hood would get in the (inbuilt) flashes way I think leaving the lenshood on it was part of the reason it stopped working because if you store it with the hood on and it gets a knock it places all the strain through the front element of the lens and through the zooming system. Obviously this is not an issue with the likes of the 80-200 but is still worth considering for the cheaper lens

Thirdfox

For all those who say that they always use a lens hood I was wondering if you were shooting star trails at night would you still put on the lens hood? Seems rather redundant to use one in that (and similar) situations.

I think the poll is a bit flawed - it probably should be phrased "do you use it most of the time" or better yet, ask what are the suitable times to use a lens hood (which I do not believe is all the time).

Valentia

Once there is light a hood is needed. Light of any description in front of the lens will cause a coating of a cast, sun or no sun, night or day. It will always help improve contrast. Always. Unless there is no light on front of the lens and I can't immagine many situations when that would happen.

m_stan

not always, but I will now need to get a few to fit the lenses I don't have one for

quilmore

Valentia wrote: »

Always. Unless there is no light on front of the lens and I can't immagine many situations when that would happen.

but may I ask
if the light is in front of the lens, will the hood prevent it to reach the glass?
I have the feel that the hood is only effective for light/brightness coming from the side and actually not being photographed
am I missing something?

DonkeyStyle \o/

Roen wrote: »

Check out here for every lens hood under the sun free. Just get a black marker and off you go

Cool, I just made one for my nifty fifty.
Didn't have a thick black marker so I covered it in really shiny (lol) black electrical tape, which I may paint over later with a dark matte paint. (or I might just throw it in the bin)
The site recommends you print on card, but I used regular office A4 and let the tape give it rigidity... which it did nicely.
It's stupidly awkward to access the manual focus ring with this thing on... and it tends to fall off a lot (hmm, the site recommends a rubber band).
It looks crap though, and I'd feel like a complete berk walking around with it hanging off the camera... it's like using a nasty bit of old rope as a camera strap.
The proper hood (according to that site) for this lens is just £18 ... a small price to pay for your dignity IMO.
Still... it might be a good way to see if your lens/photos can benefit from one before splashing out on its real (ridiculously priced) hood.
Hey, let's all make one! :pac: (please, I don't want to be the only one )

Roen

not a bad job at all! And I know the card ones won't provide any protection, but some of the super-teles hoods can be up around €400 quid.

Some people used to use cut up wellies in the good old days!

Fajitas!

Well... You either always use it or you don't

There's as much reason to use a hood at night to stop stray light interfering with photos, light from street lamps etc.

Phaetonman

Ken Rockwell says there is no point in using one so I trust his opnion.

DaireQuinlan

Phaetonman wrote: »

Ken Rockwell says there is no point in using one so I trust his opnion.

Actually, no, wait, were you being serious ?!?:eek:

Valentia

quilmore wrote: »

but may I ask
if the light is in front of the lens, will the hood prevent it to reach the glass?
I have the feel that the hood is only effective for light/brightness coming from the side and actually not being photographed
am I missing something?

If there is light in front it is very likely some of it is coming from the side, out of shot. You don't want this light anywhere near the glass on the front of the lens. However minutely, it will effect contrast. How much that effect is depends on a number of things, but there will always be some effect. I can imagine situations at night when this effect would be quite dramatic e.g. moon, street light, bright twilight or, if you are lucky enough an occassional aurora borealis Ah I wish..........

Ricky91t

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

Cool, I just made one for my nifty fifty.
Didn't have a thick black marker so I covered it in really shiny (lol) black electrical tape, which I may paint over later with a dark matte paint. (or I might just throw it in the bin)
The site recommends you print on card, but I used regular office A4 and let the tape give it rigidity... which it did nicely.
It's stupidly awkward to access the manual focus ring with this thing on... and it tends to fall off a lot (hmm, the site recommends a rubber band).
It looks crap though, and I'd feel like a complete berk walking around with it hanging off the camera... it's like using a nasty bit of old rope as a camera strap.
The proper hood (according to that site) for this lens is just £18 ... a small price to pay for your dignity IMO.
Still... it might be a good way to see if your lens/photos can benefit from one before splashing out on its real (ridiculously priced) hood.
Hey, let's all make one! :pac: (please, I don't want to be the only one )

Id love to see a pro photographer doing that on the side line of a gaa final of something cutting out his lens hood and taping it on cos the suns came out

Paulw

Phaetonman wrote: »

Ken Rockwell says there is no point in using one so I trust his opnion.

Where does he say that? Any photos of him on his site show lens hoods on the lenses.

As for some of his opinions ... he's just one guy.

Fionn

or

like this chap, you can use tape and a hood!!






oh! and i'm not sure too many people will take too much from Ken Rockwell's opinions.