The purpose of a lens hood - use always or sometimes?

[RicardoD]

I received a Bessa R, CV35 2.5 and a CV50 2.5 from another RFF member today, but more to the point I also received a pair of rectangular LH-2 lens hoods.

A google search on "purpose of a lens hood" produced this link which was very informative to me.

The Purpose of Lens Hood Link

I am trying to understand whether to use the LH-2 rectangular hoods all the time with my lenses, or only in certain situations. I would appreciate it if you could share your thoughts.

[ClaremontPhoto]

You may need a lens hood on a bright day when you're taking photographs in the general direction of the sun.

But it does bulk up your camera and make you more obvious if you are taking street photos.

Try with and without this weekend and see what works for your style.

[kmack]

For me it depends on where and what I am shooting. If I am outside I will almost always have a hood on my lenses.

I have never used a hood on my CV 2.5/35 and I have never had a flare problem. I have used my Jupiter 8 without a hood and had a lot of flare where I am shooting any subject with full or quarter back lighting.

[RML]

My M-Rokkor 40/2 never goes anywhere without its hood. My J-8 doesn't have one to begin with. Though I don't follow my own advice all the time, I'd still suggest you always use a hood.

[BrianShaw]

Always use a lens hood.

Use a lens hood always.

A lens hood, use always.

A lens hood, always use.

Always, a lens hood use.

[MikeCaine]

I always use lens hoods when using my Canon DSLRs. Apart from the flare issue, it also give some extra protection to the front element of the lens should it get banged or knocked. I've started collecting older Canons and only one lens came with a hood so far.

[Simon Larbalestier]

Mine stay on all the time. Protection against knocks, helps prevent flare and
I'd feel naked without one

[ray_g]

As mentioned, it really depends on the lens. I find it matters most in older lenses, and use a hood on my collapsible or rigid summicron. Moreso with uncoated lenses. Modern lenses like the CV are less flare-prone, but it a hood may still be useful with strong sidelighting.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Simon Larby

Mine stay on all the time. Protection against knocks, helps prevent flare and
I'd feel naked without one

ditto
the same
me too

[Rich Silfver]

Almost always.

[wlewisiii]

I prefer hoods. My Canon 50/1.8, collapsible Cron, Jupiter 3/8 all have good metal hoods. The 40/2 Summicron C has the rubber... thing... that it came with. I've got to find something better for it and something for my uncoated 90/4 Elmar which desperatly needs one.

One lens I never used with a hood was my Jupiter 12s and never had any flare issues and when I had a Skopar 35/2.5, I always used the small hood it came with.

William

[ErnestoJL]

If you point the camera diectly to the sun, surely you´ll get some flare, but if there is a strong light from any side, the light can hit the front element or filter (if you are using any), and produce some weird light effects in the picture.
In an SLR it´s easy to detect the problem but with an RF, the VF shows something very close to what´s going to be printed in the neg, not what the lens sees.

So, it´s a good advice to keep the hood allways fitted to the lens. At least you can reduce the risk of flare if not avoid it absolutely.

Ernesto

[RicardoD]

Yeah, your right Roland. I just noticed that as well. Both lenses come with small hoods that must be removed when the LH-2 is placed on it. So in a sense, I will always have a hood on these lenses, maybe just not the larger LH-2 all the time.

[Dougg]

If I have a lens hood for a lens, I always leave it on, like Simon and Joe. I won't necessarily buy a larger lens hood for a lens that came with a small one. I do prefer lens hoods that don't obstruct the viewfinder.

[Solinar]

Most of my gear is over 40 years old. I use a hood for flare protection and bump protection. My old filters which are usually uncoated seem to flare quite a bit. So, the filter only goes on when necessary, i.e. dusty, windy days.

[peter_n]

I have hoods permanently on all my lenses, mostly for protection. If the lens comes with a ridiculous big hood, I get a small one from heavystar on eBay.

[back alley]

a hood...is good!

[amateriat]

Among my three M-Hexanons that constitute my working lens system, the decision was made for me: my 50 and 90 have built-in, extendable hoods. The 28's vented hood is for all intents and purposes stays permanently affixed - and since that lens get the most use of the three, this works out well in terms of overall protection. So you might say I don't think all that much about hoods.


- Barrett

[Kat]

just a question--if I'm using an adaptor ring on the lens to upgrade to a much larger filter thread size, would adding on a hood at the end still be as effective?

[nomade]

I've never used a hood before, i've never used a light meter before, and i guess that's why i don't suffer their absense, but looking through the merchandise and reviews, makes me frustrated, the fell that I WANT ONE I WANT ONE!!!

EDIT: looking through my small gear, i guess yes, maybe for the wide lenses, my jupider is already quinda hooded...

[beethamd]

The B&W hoods (The 950 - 970 range) are beautifully made and reasonably priced. In the UK it seems that only speedgraphic.co.uk sell them. The finish is wonderful. They have 46, 49, 52, 55, 58 etc.

Very much recommended.

[wlewisiii]

To my understanding, yes it would. But you won't want to use as deep a hood as otherwise to aviod vignetting.

William

[ClaremontPhoto]

It all dpends on your style. I take photos in some pretty shadey places so flaring in the lens is never an issue, and leaving the hood inddors makes the camera less obvious.

But if you take photographs in the sun then maybe the hood is right for you.

[Mackinaw]

Who needs a stinking lens hood? Too big, too bulky and rarely necessary, I'd rather my lenses travel light and naked.

Jim Bielecki

[BrianShaw]

Try a hood... you'll never go naked again!