Does anyone use lens hoods?

soeren said:
Deffinitely. Filters can have their use in conditions like that but filters protection against impacts are approx zero
Click to expand...
I've seen a filter with a stone chipping embedded in it. The photographer was covering a rally special stage and one of the cars had picked up the chipping and flung it into his lens. The front element of his lens was untouched thanks to the filer; without the protection that filter gave, it would have been an expensive repair! Obviously this depends on how much space there is between the filter and the front element of the lens, but on that occasion there was enough for the chap to get away with the cost of a new filter instead of the cost of a new front lens element.

I think the second video Marc posted was about the most sensible and unbiased presentation about the 'filter debate' I've seen yet, and I'd recommend everyone watches it and then just makes up their own mind about the subject, rather than listening to popular misconceptions being repeated parrot fashion, ironically by some people who are also keen to repeat the myth that even deep scratches on the front element of a lens will make no difference to image quality! It might not make a noticeable difference in dull weather/indoor test conditions, but try shooting with a lens with a scratched or broken front element into the sun, or at an acute angle to the sun, and that myth will be as busted as the front element is! Mind you... you could always use a lens hood I suppose! :whistle: ;)
 
Mr Badger said:
I've seen a filter with a stone chipping embedded in it. The photographer was covering a rally special stage and one of the cars had picked up the chipping and flung it into his lens. The front element of his lens was untouched thanks to the filer; without the protection that filter gave, it would have been an expensive repair! Obviously this depends on how much space there is between the filter and the front element of the lens, but on that occasion there was enough for the chap to get away with the cost of a new filter instead of the cost of a new front lens element.

I think the second video Marc posted was about the most sensible and unbiased presentation about the 'filter debate' I've seen yet, and I'd recommend everyone watches it and then just makes up their own mind about the subject, rather than listening to popular misconceptions being repeated parrot fashion, ironically by some people who are also keen to repeat the myth that even deep scratches on the front element of a lens will make no difference to image quality! It might not make a noticeable difference in dull weather/indoor test conditions, but try shooting with a lens with a scratched or broken front element into the sun, or at an acute angle to the sun, and that myth will be as busted as the front element is! Mind you... you could always use a lens hood I suppose! :whistle: ;)
Click to expand...
Did you watch the video Sky linked to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
soeren said:
Did you watch the video Sky linked to?
Click to expand...


I think that video appeared to concentrate on testing the front element of lenses to absolute destruction, not just chipping or marking them. Also, I believe using heavy weights at fairly slow velocity is likely to cause internal damage, as well a breaking the front element, whereas a lighter object travelling at a higher velocity is unlikely to cause mechanical/internal damage, but still leave a mark on the front element. I'm sure you can see the difference there?
 
Last edited:
drsilver said:
Does anyone use lens hoods these days?

I've mentioned I was away from photography for 30 years. When I got back, lens hoods had become huge. I've got a whole cabinet full of lens hoods. I admonish my wife periodically about the refrigerator and pantry, DON'T STORE AIR. Lens hoods, when stored or transported, are liters and liters of air.

View attachment 292788 View attachment 292789
Left: Canon 24-105mm f/4 with hood, circa 2016. Right: Nikkor 24mm f/2 with hood, circa 1980.

When a lens hood comes into play, you're looking at a tough shot anyway. You might reconsider the angle of your light. But if you think, no, this is the shot I want, then a left hand is an almost-always adequate shade.

So I don't carry lens hoods. Just too much empty space to lug around.
Click to expand...
To get reasonable flare resistance on a lens like a 24-105 it NEEDS to be big. A hood like your 1980s version would be usable at the wide end, but does very little at 105.
This is why hoods are often bigger these days.

The hoods on the 500mm/8, 24-70mm, 55-210mm & 14mm/2.8 that live in my main camera bag take up very little space as there's something in them when stored. I don't use hoods on the other lenses in that bag either because I've not got one that fits (some unusual lenses) or because I use filters on the lens too often.

Just out of interest what do you suggest your wife replaces the air in the pantry with?
 
Mr Badger said:
I think that video appeared to concentrate on testing the front element of lenses to absolute destruction, not just chipping or marking them. Also, I believe using heavy weights at fairly slow velocity is likely to cause internal damage, as well a breaking the front element, whereas a lighter object travelling at a higher velocity is unlikely to cause mechanical/internal damage, but still leave a mark on the front element. I'm sure you can see the difference there?
Click to expand...
Yes, still the strengt difference aplies. A damaged filter does not equal a saved front element.
 
soeren said:
Yes, still the strengt difference aplies. A damaged filter does not equal a saved front element.
Click to expand...
A damaged filter may not equal a smashed or cracked front element, but it may very well equal a chipped or marked front element. In which case, I'd take a damaged and easily replicable filter any day of the week! If you believe otherwise then fine, that's your affair. :)
 
Mr Badger said:
A damaged filter may not equal a smashed or cracked front element, but it may very well equal a chipped or marked front element. In which case, I'd take a damaged and easily replicable filter any day of the week! If you believe otherwise then fine, that's your affair. :)
Click to expand...
I dont think so. Filters are very fragile compared to lens front elements as seen in the video. It takes next to nothing to crack og break the filter and the foreign matter being embeded in the filter shows that was very little force. Being somewhere risking flying items with forces large enough to Damage the lens my own security would come first and id get my butt out of there. Offcource if se are talking shooting a welder or grinder in action its filter on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I spent 10 years banging Nikons around. Bumps and bruises were a badge of honor. But I don't think I ever scratched a lens element.

Now I kept (and keep) UV filters on my lenses religiously, and maybe that's why. Or maybe not. That's not why I use them. It's the rim shot I'm protecting against. Unless you're in a garage cracking glass with a bearing press, the bezel on the front of the lens is way more likely to get banged up than the recessed front element. If you bang the rim hard enough it will damage the mechanics and brick the lens. More likely, you'll bend the bezel and that lens will never take filters again -- which sucks.

I broke 1 filter where I had to chip the glass out and peel the rim out from the lens threads with a pair of pliers. Filter rims are soft metal, aluminum or brass. Absorbs blows. Lens was fine -- glass and barrel. Had to use it for a few days without a filter. Made me nervous.

So yeah, filters are fragile. They're meant to be. You want them to be the weak link. If anything breaks, it's the filter.

If you're looking for max lens protection, giant lens hoods are your best bet. You got a net buoy clipped to the end. They should paint them orange.
 
Last edited:
drsilver said:
If you're looking for max lens protection, giant lens hoods are your best bet. You got a net buoy clipped to the end. They should paint them orange.
Click to expand...

I agree, for lens protection.

However, lens hoods also enhance contrast, and reduce flare. But only if they have the proper size for the focal length. Not: the bigger the better, if you want to satisfy the other purposes.

Which is why I have lens hoods for all my lenses of the proper size (which costs quite lot for all my Leica M mount lenses) - and I use them ... ---
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
drsilver said:
I spent 10 years banging Nikons around. Bumps and bruises were a badge of honor. But I don't think I ever scratched a lens element.

Now I kept (and keep) UV filters on my lenses religiously, and maybe that's why. Or maybe not. That's not why I use them. It's the rim shot I'm protecting against. Unless you're in a garage cracking glass with a bearing press, the bezel on the front of the lens is way more likely to get banged up than the recessed front element. If you bang the rim hard enough it will damage the mechanics and brick the lens. More likely, you'll bend the bezel and that lens will never take filters again -- which sucks.

I broke 1 filter where I had to chip the glass out and peel the rim out from the lens threads with a pair of pliers. Filter rims are soft metal, aluminum or brass. Absorbs blows. Lens was fine -- glass and barrel. Had to use it for a few days without a filter. Made me nervous.

So yeah, filters are fragile. They're meant to be. You want them to be the weak link. If anything breaks, it's the filter.

If you're looking for max lens protection, giant lens hoods are your best bet. You got a net buoy clipped to the end. They should paint them orange.
Click to expand...
Ive broken two lenses over the last 22 years. One(Nikon 28-70 zoom) down a trail in the high Tatras, lenses intact zoom and Focus inoperable. The seconds was this summer when I dropped my 9 mm Laowa from a control tower on an old military airfield(10-15m). Lenses intact but fix Focus and tilt was introduced. I even mounted and used the lens after picking it up. The apperture also worked. My A6000 with 12mm samyang took a 6ft dive onto a Boulder beach a few years back but the lenshoods took the punishment and even that survived. While filters may save your filter thread on lens they offer No shock absorbance or significant shock distribution to save anything other from Damages uppon impact but they do almost you to go crazy on cleaning without risking marks on the front element.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a different view. I do not use hoods. Don't even own one. As for lens protection if I use anything i'll use a UV filter. If I want a little shade above my lens a hand I find works well. But there again can't remember the last time I even did that.
 
Larger lens hoods can also be useful to hide behind when making your escape after someone starts a discussion about UV filters.
 
Retune said:
Larger lens hoods can also be useful to hide behind when making your escape after someone starts a discussion about UV filters.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?

;) :exit:
 
Mr Badger said:
Perhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?

;) :exit:
Click to expand...
And a single cardslot........dont forget the single cardslot
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Badger said:
Perhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?

;) :exit:
Click to expand...

Stuff all that, will the photos be processed on a Mac or PC? :naughty:
 
I forgot to include the very important topic of using full manual exposure mode to take the above mentioned photos (because you can't be a proper photographer unless you shoot in full manual mode and take total control of the exposure)... while leaving the ISO set to auto. (y) ;)
 
Last edited:
Yes I use them, I also reverse them and slot them back onto the lens so that don't take up much space.

They have also saved lenses from knocks a few times when exploring old underground quarries.
 
Mr Badger said:
Perhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?

;) :exit:
Click to expand...
Well, as we save so much money buying from grey market dealers it doesn't seem necessary to charge for the photos...
 
I just saw this today. It's in Kickstarter mode. I think I'll get one. And, judging by the number of folks who have signed up, I'm not the only one who hates traffic-cone-sized lens hoods. Not as much protection, but it would work as a lens hood when I need it, and pack away when I don't.

Universal Lens Hood
 
drsilver said:
I just saw this today. It's in Kickstarter mode. I think I'll get one. And, judging by the number of folks who have signed up, I'm not the only one who hates traffic-cone-sized lens hoods. Not as much protection, but it would work as a lens hood when I need it, and pack away when I don't.

Universal Lens Hood
Click to expand...
Loving the fact they do deals for buying multiple hoods! So let’s think, I’ve got four lenses I’ll buy four ‘universal’ hoods, or I could buy one and spend more time changing it every time I change lens than taking photos, or I could use the manufacturers proper hoods, that fit perfectly and work to the very best level for each lens.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
The irony of 2 universal sizes wasn't lost on me. But the "M" fits my 17-40 and my 24-105, so that's universal enough for me.

What I like about it is that when I don't need a lens hood, which, from my experience, is most of the time, I can stash it in a pocket or a crevice in my bag. I can use it on an as-needed basis like a polarizer or ND filter. And even if I leave it on all the time while I'm shooting, it will collapse into that same crevice when I'm travelling. No need to carry a bag full of different sized traffic cones.
 
More on universality. If you think about it, all petal-shaped lens hoods are universal to a particular zoom range so they need to be both long and wide. Coupled with their rigidity, that's what makes them so unwieldy. A variably collapsible design is an answer to a universal length and the volume that adds.
 
I actually have a small collapsible third party rubber hood somewhere from the film era, though it has a specific filter thread rather than wrapping around the barrel. The main disadvantages are that finding a position that gives adequate shading without vignetting for a particular lens (or focal length) needs a bit of trial and error (easier on digital, but check carefully for subtle corner darkening), and it doesn't offer much in the way of impact protection.
 
Retune said:
You are quite keen on the 35mm focal length, then! I have a Summicron with a rectangular hood like that - nice hood, but terrible cap that usually falls off when I take the camera out of the bag (maybe automatic cap removal is a feature?).
Click to expand...

Hi, I lost a lens hood cap for my Elmarit 2,8/28 asph. - When I go out taking pictures, I generally take just one camera with one lens fitted, with me.

I wear jackets or vests with deep pockets for storing the camera if I need my hands free. ( I do not use shoulder straps, just a sling for holding the camera in the hand.)

The hoods prevent the cloth of the garments touching the lenses, so I don't fit a hood cap. And I never carry a camera bag ... ---
 
Last edited:
These Leica hood caps seem almost designed to be lost, and the annoying this is they've already discontinued the cap for the version of the 35/2 ASPH I have (the new iteration uses a different hood):
www.l-camera-forum.com

Lost lens cap

Does anyone know where I can get the plastic lens cap for my 35mm Summicron f2.0 ASPH, not the latest one? None of the usual culprits have any available. I lost mine whilst walking around Plymouth UK the other day. Happy New Year to all.
www.l-camera-forum.com www.l-camera-forum.com
You can take the hood off and use a conventional cap, but the hood is a bit fiddly to fit. I did find one third party cap, but it's even more expensive than the Leica cap was, though it looks like it might be a better design:

Online Camera Shopping for Professional Digital Camera & Accessories

Online camera shopping for professional digital camera accessories,used camera & Lenses at Popflash Photo from top brand, it includes Leica, Pentax, Zeiss & Fujifilm professional photography cameras. Buy now!
www.popflash.com
 
Hi, I have a few lens hood caps I am quite happy with, for the Elmarit 2,8/21 asph., the Elmar 3,8/24, the Elmarit 2,8/24, the Elmarit 2,8/28 pre-asph. the Summarits 35 and 50, the 75 Summarit, the Voigtländer 1,2/35.

Most annoying are the ZEISS lens caps one can fit when the lens hood is mounted. These are extremely fiddly. I lost one of these lens caps when I removed it in the car,
and it went into the no-man's-land somewhere between the front seats. ZEISS design excellent lenses. Why are their lens caps so horrible ???

Maybe, one should start a lens cap thread ... --- ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top