Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: Hood or no hood?
Use a hood all the time on my lenses 61 63.54%
Never use a hood (why?) 8 8.33%
Some yes and some not (which ones?) 26 27.08%
I'm in a gang, I'm a hoodlum not a hood 1 1.04%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

To hood or not to hood?
Old 2 Days Ago   #1
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 9,958
To hood or not to hood?

Do you use a hood on your lenses or not? Do you use a hood on certain lenses and not on others?
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #2
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 2,540
Only use hood with my scratched lenses or lenses that have the tedency to flare (i.e. Zuiko 50 f/1.4). With the rest ones (especialy some Tessars) i don't bother.

Ps. Some 50mm have a recessed front element so there is no need for a lens hood (Nikkor AF 50, Canon EF 50 etc...)
__________________
Regards,
Pan


The Monochrome Archives
Instagram



  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #3
Bendj
Registered User
 
Bendj is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 64
Never use a hood unless it is built in as I like to keep my setup as small as I can.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #4
helenhill
mod chasing light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 5,679
the two lenses I use hoods on
21 Super Angulon ...a tres sexy beautiful hood, plus thatt lens is so naked and round it needs protection
50 2.8 Elmar M modern edition...the tiniest sweetest hood... just lovely and E39 fits so many lenses
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #5
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 9,958
I also hood the 21 Super Angulon. But not my trusty CV 50/1.5 "short tele".
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #6
Vince Lupo
Registered User
 
Vince Lupo's Avatar
 
Vince Lupo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,762
All the time -- if nothing else, if I bump the front of the lens I end up bumping the hood and not the edge of the lens or even the front element itself (particularly for lenses that have elements that are not recessed). Easier to replace a damaged lens hood than to try to fix a damaged lens.
__________________
Check Out Our Redesigned Website! http://www.directiononeinc.com

Flickr Albums: http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/sets/

Check Out Our Latest Work On Our Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/

'Mapping the West' - Named as one of the Best Photo Exhibits of 2016 by the Washington City Paper: http://www.directiononeinc.com/mapping-the-west/
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #7
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,983
First, hood protect from direct hits.
Second, hood cutting off glares.
But some of lenses don’t have appropriate hood support. Canon cheap EF lenses have hood connected to the front tube which connects to AF mechanism.
And some lenses have very deep front element. Canon 50 1.8 LTM with 40.5 step up ring and filter on it doesn’t needs hood.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #8
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,614
Always use a hood, even those crappy rubber ones.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #9
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,123
I've always used hoods on lenses/cameras that can take them. They used to be rubber ones as they can fold back out f the way, but a couple of years ago I got a slotted metal one for my Ricoh 500GX and ever since then I only use metal ones.

This turned out to be a good policy last year when I was in an art gallery and I dropped a Praktica PLC3 and Pentacon Electric 50mm lens. It landed on the front of the metal lens hood which got dented, but otherwise the camera and lens were unharmed, I just needed a new lens hood which cost about £5.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #10
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,618
I use hoods on all my Voigtlander and Zeiss ZM lenses. Because Cosina in their wisdom built them with shiny chrome silver rings around the front element.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #11
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,960
I have hoods for every lens that I can fit one reasonably. I would like a hood for my Elmar 50mm f/3.5 but I don't want to afford one or don't like the way they work. I've made some hoods: for my Olympus 35RC, and am now making one for the above Elmar and a 35mm Serenar. My Folders are hoodless, but the Super 23 I have a step up ring that allows Pentax 49mm filter size hoods; the rubber ones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #12
Henry
Registered User
 
Henry is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 157
I use a hood in manual lenses and no hood in AF lenses. I cannot fully explain this logic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #13
wjlapier
Registered User
 
wjlapier's Avatar
 
wjlapier is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
Made the mistake of using a Yama hood on the W-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 S mount. Apparently there is a hood for this lens but my Yama 43mm was too narrow.

For the longest time I never used hoods, Nikon 80-200 AFS, 200 f/2 AFS and a couple other. Those first two were my main lenses when my kids were in school and did sports and other school activities. Even when I switched to Sony A6000 and 70-200 f/4 I never used the hood. Never had a problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #14
LCSmith
arbiter elegentiae
 
LCSmith's Avatar
 
LCSmith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 231
Outside, yes. Inside, no.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #15
Greg Maslak
Registered User
 
Greg Maslak's Avatar
 
Greg Maslak is offline
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: The Kootenay's, BC, Canada
Posts: 178
I've always used hoods as a matter of routine, for both stay light and protection, except now with the little Fuji 27mm on an XE-2s. There just wasn't one until "Squarehood" in Sweden came up with a neat looking, albeit expensive outside the AF element mounted little affair that looks very attractive. I know they have had one for the X100 series for a while. Does anyone have experience with these? I'm tempted, but 60 euros +++ makes me hesitate.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #16
andyturk
Registered User
 
andyturk is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 64
No hoods for me (usually) unless they're built-in. I use filters religiously, however.

I also put up with the hood on my 35mm f/1.4 because it flares easily.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #17
ruby.monkey
Registered User
 
ruby.monkey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Age: 49
Posts: 4,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Maslak View Post
I've always used hoods as a matter of routine, for both stay light and protection, except now with the little Fuji 27mm on an XE-2s. There just wasn't one until "Squarehood" in Sweden came up with a neat looking, albeit expensive outside the AF element mounted little affair that looks very attractive. I know they have had one for the X100 series for a while. Does anyone have experience with these? I'm tempted, but 60 euros +++ makes me hesitate.
I have their X100 Squarehood II, which works the same way as this one. The hood itself is beautifully made and shades the lens well (and is almost out of the way of the built-in flash). Mounting is via a pair of grub screws that tighten against a screw-on adaptor. As long as you're not going to be taking off the hood, the mounting method is perfectly adequate, but (at least with the X100 version) the screws can't be tightened enough to guarantee that the hood won't slip round on the adaptor when you unscrew the assembly from the lens. This may not be a consideration with the 27mm - I superglued my hood to its adaptor since I regularly need to swap it out for one of the lens converters.

All in all an excellent hood and, for me, well worth the asking price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #18
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,263
My lenses would feel naked without a hood. I have one for every lens and always use them.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #19
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Maslak View Post
I've always used hoods as a matter of routine, for both stay light and protection, except now with the little Fuji 27mm on an XE-2s. There just wasn't one until "Squarehood" in Sweden came up with a neat looking, albeit expensive outside the AF element mounted little affair that looks very attractive. I know they have had one for the X100 series for a while. Does anyone have experience with these? I'm tempted, but 60 euros +++ makes me hesitate.
60 EUR? Cheap compared to what Zeiss/Voigtlander and Leica charge for theirs!

Pro tip - the Zeiss and Voigtlander hoods are the same but with different labelling. The Voigtlander ones are much cheaper..
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #20
TenEleven
Registered User
 
TenEleven's Avatar
 
TenEleven is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 85
I usually use hoods, mostly of the cheap screw-in type sold by the eBay seller "heavystar". I just bought a bunch of sizes all at once and now I'm all set hood-wise.

I mainly use them for protection. I often carry more than one camera and can't always pay perfect attention as to whether or not it is bumping into something or someone. Hoods are a must.
They also they help with strong side-light which can cause some nasty veiling flare on my older lenses. You still get flare of course, no magic bullet there, but less of it.
__________________
Manuel
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #21
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,046
Hood? Yes, if I can but I have some oddball lenses that there is no practical way to employ a hood. When necessary I can often shade the lens with my hand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #22
shimokita
白黒
 
shimokita's Avatar
 
shimokita is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Japan, Tokyo
Posts: 867
I don't use hoods... just something else to carry and fiddle with... I also do a lot of winter shoots with the camera under the jacket when not taking photos... when using Lee Seven5 filters a hood is not part of the kit...

The one exception is the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH with built-in hood... but even then it's not always extended...
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #23
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,323
Depends on how much I'm concerned about the overall size of the rig and what lens I'm working with. I've got hoods for most everything, but very few are always used - the CV 21/4 gets the giant rectangular LH-1 hood, anything with an original hood that accepts Series filters (Komura 35/3.5, Nikkor 85/2 and 135/3.5) stays on. The rest are just generic ebay aluminum pieces, except for oddballs like the original Elmar, that get mounted if I feel like it.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #24
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
 
Pál_K's Avatar
 
Pál_K is offline
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Gig Harbor
Posts: 275
Both for flare and protection I always try to get a hood for lenses I buy.

Only exception is for my little rangefinders like QL17 GIII, Hi-Matic 7sII, and Olympus 35RC.

I was not totally happy with the huge petal hood on the Fuji X 23/1.4, but I got it. It intrudes into the OVF a bit much, but I can switch to EVF.
__________________
"Great photography is about the visual effect upon the viewer, not sharpness." - Stephen Gandy, Cameraquest
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #25
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,245
Short hoods for protection but not for flare. I rather like flare.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #26
dof
Fiat Lux
 
dof's Avatar
 
dof is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 725
I use a hood on every lens. Made a decision to go this route in the late 90's.

Have been thinking lately though that I should try not using one on my Hasselblad 80mm Planar C lens. I used to get a lovely softness in some of my images from that lens and have begun to wonder if veiling flare is the reason.
__________________
-J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #27
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,598
On uncoated and some single-coated lenses yes. Otherwise pretty much never, one exception being the M42 Schneider Xenon I use, as the front element has almost no built-in shading/protection from the barrel. The other exception being misty, or rainy days, to help keep droplets off the glass.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #28
vnukov_pk
Registered User
 
vnukov_pk is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 86
I try to use hoods, however if I carry a camera in my casual bag, I may take the hood of, as it sometimes gets in the way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #29
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,349
If it takes a hood, I'll use one, but some of my lenses are so deep set they really don't require it (a lot of my old fixed-lens rangefinders are like that, and some 50/2 types).


PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #30
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,827
Being old school (born before coatings) I believe a hood hurts nothing and is the greatest, cheapest benefit available to improve a lens. There is absolutely no downside to not using a hood. Saying that I seem to forget the hood 75% of time. The front element is recessed enough on a lot of lenses that you can get by without a hood. But when I read people complaining about flare from side lighting (like on the newest 50mm Summicron) I really wonder if they ever used a hood.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #31
WJJ3
Registered User
 
WJJ3's Avatar
 
WJJ3 is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hakuba
Posts: 780
I prefer to use a hood in most cases. They keep my lenses protected from objects, snow, rain, my fingers, etc, as well as blocking stray light.

I'm not a huge fan of screw on hoods, prefer to use a bayonet hood, but many of my lenses only use screw on, so I use them where needed.

There is a limit on how big is acceptable with hoods. For example when I got my MEM, it came with the 12575, which is just silly to use on the wonderfully compact MEM. Fortunately the compact ITOOY fits and works great, so I use that.

One lens I don't use a hood on is my LTM W-NIKKOR 3.5cm f2.5. It is so small I don't want to detract from that. Also the front element is recessed far enough that I don't worry about it getting banged or finger prints.
__________________
Happy Shooting!
~Will

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #32
mystichobo
Registered User
 
mystichobo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 13
I use a hood on my uncoated Elmars (9cm and 5cm), but I normally try others without a hood first and then add one if I start seeing flaring issues.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #33
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 546
I have and use dedicated hoods for my lenses. The only time I don't use one is if I don't have one for one of my 35mm folders.
__________________
flickriver
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #34
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 71
Posts: 6,137
Most of times yes to add an extra protection as Vince explained in his post (#6).

I like in the cold months to keep my camera under my coat and the hood protect the lens from rubbing against it. Or sometimes when I put the camera in my bag but I like to have the possibility to take out and shoot without screwing or attaching it.

I do not use it on my Summaron 28/5.6 because the front lens is very recessed.

I'm not concerned so much about improvement in imaege quality, I dare to say oft I love flare
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #35
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,643
I use hood(same one) on my 50mm Collapsible Summicron and 35mm Goggle-Summaron.
The 135mm Tele-Elmar which seldom flares unlike the 1st two..
My Takumars seldom need a hood but flare easily seen in SLR viewfinder..
Nikon Nikkors all without hoods, even more flare prone 105mm f2.5.
My Minolta Rokkor lenses exhibit almost identical flare to Leitz lenses...
Rolleiflex Tessar has hood.

The Minoltas wait for warmer weather as cheap battery not work in sub-sub zero..
Come warmer weather we'll see what they do!
28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 35mm~75mm, 80~200mm...All Minolta.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #36
Pentode
Registered User
 
Pentode's Avatar
 
Pentode is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 229
I almost always use a hood.
Sometimes I also wear a hoodie.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #37
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,101
I voted "all" although I don't put a hood on some lenses where the front element is deeply recessed, so the hood is practically built in, and some lenses for which I don't have one, yet. Also the phone unfortunately doesn't take a hood. And I don't have filters in all sizes, so I might use step-up rings and then have no hood that works when using a filter, but I don't do that much.
There's simply no downside to using a hood, except insignificantly more bulk, and all the benefits mentioned here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #38
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,566
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. If there's a misty rain, I'll always use a hood to keep the drops from the front element. I don't worry too much about flare with prime lenses but I'll almost always use a hood with zooms. And I never use a hood indoors.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #39
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,101
Why no hood indoors? Usually you have more light sources that could induce flare. And the ratio of flare-inducing light to intentional-exposure-light remains the same, no matter the absolute intensity of the light. After all, we have to increase exposure time, aperture (or on digital, ISO) to get the exposure the film wants. Exposure with flare is increased along with that of the wanted light. In fact, we'll likely use wide apertures that are more susceptible to flare.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #40
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,250
A hood, and a UV filter, on every lens. When I need them quickly and the weather isn't cooperating or at the scene of an event that can have environmental damage - fires are the most common - I don't want to take the time to remove a lens cap, screw a UV filter on, and then install a hood. I realize most people don't have these time constraints, but I would rather get the shot as safely as I can than sit in the truck cab installing doodads.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:10.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.