PDA

View Full Version : To hood or not to hood?


kshapero
04-19-2007, 05:35
How many of us use a lens hood? All the time, never, or just certain times? Why? Flare? Protection of your glass, etc.?

oftheherd
04-19-2007, 05:49
Funny, I normally use it on my Super Press 23 on the 100mm lens. That's just because it came with one. I seldom use them elsewhere, but know it would often help. When I know I may be in trouble, I often try to shade with my hands or a hat.

David Goldfarb
04-19-2007, 05:54
Yes, just about all the time.

Bill58
04-19-2007, 06:08
Always--for all of the above reasons.

Mafufo Acilu
04-19-2007, 06:47
Always 100% on all my lenses

sepiareverb
04-19-2007, 06:49
Nearly always- I will sometimes forego a hood indoors, if the lens needs one screwed in or stuck on (thinking mainly about the 40 'cron here) and my G21 has no hood, but doesn't seem to need one. Flare is my main reason.

Tuolumne
04-19-2007, 07:33
Always. It provides much better contrast, I have found, adds physical protection to the lens, and looks cool. I found a great product made by Op/tech called a Hood Hat that provides tremendous extra protection to the lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=197129&is=REG
The mini-version fits best on RF lenses.

/T

raid
04-19-2007, 07:37
I always use a hood. There is no negative result from using hood and there are only positives.


What would be shipping cost for an item that costs $7.95?

"I found a great product made by Op/tech called a Hood Hat that provides tremendous extra protection to the lens"

Tuolumne
04-19-2007, 07:50
I always use a hood. There is no negative result from using hood and there are only positives.


What would be shipping cost for an item that costs $7.95?

"I found a great product made by Op/tech called a Hood Hat that provides tremendous extra protection to the lens"

Raid,
I can never buy just one item from B&H. :D Pretty soon after I go to the site I have enough items in my cart that shipping becomes irrelevant. They always have nice films on special if you don't want to spend too much money to make the shipping cost more palatable. But according to the B&H web site, shipping is $4.95 for that one $7.95 item, so it might not be worth buying solo.

/T

raid
04-19-2007, 08:24
Raid,
I can never buy just one item from B&H. :D Pretty soon after I go to the site I have enough items in my cart that shipping becomes irrelevant. They always have nice films on special if you don't want to spend too much money to make the shipping cost more palatable. But according to the B&H web site, shipping is $4.95 for that one $7.95 item, so it might not be worth buying solo.

/T

Actually, the cost of $4.95 is not bad at all when compared to what other stores charge for shipping. I used to buy stuff from B&H each time for $200-$400, but I have slowed down since I switched to rangefinder photography.

Raid

RayPA
04-19-2007, 08:37
Yes preferably always

kshapero
04-19-2007, 09:53
Always. It provides much better contrast, I have found, adds physical protection to the lens, and looks cool. I found a great product made by Op/tech called a Hood Hat that provides tremendous extra protection to the lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=197129&is=REG
The mini-version fits best on RF lenses.

/T

Mini GAS, I ordered one.

Xmas
04-19-2007, 10:16
A hood is cheaper then a new lens after your drop a camera and it lands on the lens. They can be bent back into shape, or framed and mounted like a trophy.

Noel

payasam
04-19-2007, 11:16
Except when I'm in an insanely tearing hurry, which mercifully happens seldom. A hood also keeps fingers off the front element of a lens, which is important to one who uses no image degrading "protective" filter.

peter_n
04-19-2007, 17:15
Hood & UV filter on all lenses for protection. (I also don't use image degrading "protective" filters. ;) )

ray_g
04-19-2007, 17:44
One of the reasons I like RF's and RF lenses is that they are small. I dislike most hoods for this reason. Even the collapsible 50 summicron becomes "big" when you attach a 12585 hood. I use them when there are strong light sources, or other times I feel them necessary. I guess that is why I prefer lenses with retractable hoods.

The one exception is the small square hood on the 35 summicron. I don't mind it as much.

I tend to use filters more. Especially on old lenses with soft coatings. And in dusty surroundings. Except when I think they would cause flare.

I guess the bottom line, for me, is that just like anything, they have their purpose, and I use them based on that.

Joe Mondello
04-19-2007, 18:17
I knock into things. Much rather have the lens hood take the knock rather than the front element!

Also I can't stand those reflections I too often get from a front filter.

The ONLY time I was glad there was a filter on a lens was when a camel licked the front of a Nikon 35-70 zoom (72mm objective) in Egypt!

fishtek
04-19-2007, 18:47
Yup! Always! Aside from the flare protection, there's always the opportunity for an accidental collision with something, and I'd rather that the hood take the brunt of the impact. It also prevents me from getting a finger in front of the wide lenses.

Regards!
Don

Rico
04-19-2007, 21:30
Hoods are nice in theory but, in practice, the added bulk makes them a pain. I prefer a sleeker profile: easier navigation out of bags, around corners, and in my hand. The bare lens is friendlier on the street, too. The only hood I liked was the Hassy for CZ Planar 80 (plastic, square, bayonet, small).

ruben
04-20-2007, 01:03
I have as many hoods as lenses.
No lens without hood even when resting at the shelf.
And of course, metal hoods only, surrounded by a fitting piece of bicycle tyre, painted and shining in black with any liquid shoe brightener.

Cheers,
Ruben

Film dino
04-20-2007, 01:05
Hoods are permanently on lenses semi-permanently on bodies semi-permanently in bags

ClaremontPhoto
04-20-2007, 01:10
I have a lens hood but never ever use it. It makes the camera too big.

Some photos have got flare, but that's because the location had flare.

Rico
04-20-2007, 01:58
Some photos have got flare, but that's because the location had flare.
Well put! :D

Ossifan
04-20-2007, 05:25
On the one hand, the lens designers seem to think they are necessary, so I tend to use them; however, I really hate that the hood on my collapsible summicron makes it so much bigger than I'd like. I notice that, in every picture I've seen, HCB has a hood on his lenses...

Cheers,
Alex

icebear
04-20-2007, 05:46
How much better can you see your surroundings in the bright sunshine wearing a base cap ? So there should basically be no question about using a shade on the lens :D . Of course some "modern" AF lenses on digital SR's are already bulky w/o the shade and everytime I see people with the shade in "parking position" i.e. backwards - which really helps IQ....

HansDerHase
04-20-2007, 05:58
Ok.. they often look pretty sexy, especially when they are vented or rectangular. But for a trade-off they give the camera some extra size.

They will give a little extra contrast and tend to lessen flare, but that's only a slight tad. Not enough bang for the .. *errr* .. size for me.

Considering the big variables in the gamble for contrast (direction and quality of light, quality of the lens itself and the choice of film/dev) the effects of a hood are almost nil. Plus some "local-contrast-enhancement" in Photoshop will outperform any hood in the "make it pop" department.

wintoid
04-21-2007, 02:00
The only hoods I ever use are the ones on the Hexanon 50mm and on my Hexar AF, just because they're already built in (thanks Konica!). I have the hoods for my Hexanon 35mm and 28mm lenses, and for my Nokton 40mm, but they stay in the box... those lenses are contrasty enough anyway. I'm just starting to contemplate a hood for the Yashica GX, but never use one on my compact rangefinders (35SP, 35RC). I never use the hood on my SLR either, although the Canon 50mm f1.4 has an OK hood IMHO.

Roel
04-21-2007, 03:55
The only hoods I ever use are the ones on the Hexanon 50mm and on my Hexar AF, just because they're already built in (thanks Konica!). I have the hoods for my Hexanon 35mm and 28mm lenses, and for my Nokton 40mm, but they stay in the box... those lenses are contrasty enough anyway. I'm just starting to contemplate a hood for the Yashica GX, but never use one on my compact rangefinders (35SP, 35RC). I never use the hood on my SLR either, although the Canon 50mm f1.4 has an OK hood IMHO.

Wintoid,

I always use the hood on my leica 50 cron and 24/2.8. (never use a filter) I'm in the market for a hood for my vc 40mm! So please PM me if you want to sell yours?! :)
Thnx Roel

arbib
04-21-2007, 20:31
Outside and Sunny to Partly Cloudy: YES Always
Outside with overcast sky's: Sometimes, Depends on how bright it is. Usually, I just leave it on if I am outside.
Inside: Rarely....unless I am shooting with bright window light at angles or behind the subject, OR...I have a lamp on without the shade to add some light so I can hand hold the camera for the picture.

Xmas
04-22-2007, 10:04
Hoods are probably a really high markup item, like filters and food in a pub.

But when you drop your camera on to road/sidewalk you might be lucky if it has a hood, you might need a new hood. If you drop it naked, you might need a new lens or have a custom filter mount.

This is a male jewelry forum, what do you do after your drop it...

Noel

varjag
04-23-2007, 02:25
Considering the big variables in the gamble for contrast (direction and quality of light, quality of the lens itself and the choice of film/dev) the effects of a hood are almost nil. Plus some "local-contrast-enhancement" in Photoshop will outperform any hood in the "make it pop" department.
Not really. Depending on position of light source(s), the difference with and without hood can be dramatic, from ruined shot to perfect capture.

Bill58
04-23-2007, 04:53
I just wish we could get the heavystars guy to make 49 and 55mm I.D. square hoods for 25/35/40/50mm lenses that don't intrude into the VF OR a vented hood that would not do the same.

I've asked, but he says he has no plans to do so. Maybe if enough people ask............?

BillBingham2
04-24-2007, 06:17
With one exception, everything has a hood on it. That exception is my Nikkor 28/2.8 AIs that sits in the bottom of the SLR bag and that is only because of size.

I do wish CV would make a hood for the 40/1.4 that was reversable. While I love the vented hood, I would be willing to pay twice the already high price for that feature.

B2 (;->

bensyverson
04-25-2007, 11:44
Never with my Mamiya 7... It's just too much of a pain to take off and put on. You'd think with such a well-designed camera they'd make it so you could put the lens cap on when the hood is on!

like2fiddle
04-25-2007, 12:03
Almost always outdoors, regardless of conditions; sometimes indoors. I have mixed feelings about hoods/shades. On the one hand they can make a significant difference in the outcome of the photo, but on the other hand, they sometimes add so much to the size of the outfit that they defeat the "smaller size aspect" of rangefinders.