Does anyone use lens hoods?

dweeble said:
I wouldn't know, Is that something specific to Cannon [sic] users? Guess you guys need all the help you can get :)
Click to expand...
Yes, the red ring shows great taste in photographic equipment... I suppose that's why you see it so often when they show press photographers during a TV news report. Yes, again, we do need all the help we can get... to remain so modest and empathetic when we know we own the best, most fit for purpose and adaptable DSLR kit out there. :p

;)
 
dweeble said:
People seem to have dodged the very very important fact that they make your kit look BIGGER and more IMPORTANT
Click to expand...
That's probably the best argument I've heard. Another: if you're out shooting landscapes or wildlife and need to dig a latrine, a lens hood would make a fine spade in a pinch.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Yes, the red ring shows great taste in photographic equipment... I suppose that's why you see it so often when they show press photographers during a TV news report. Yes, again, we do need all the help we can get... to remain so modest and empathetic when we know we own the best, most fit for purpose and adaptable DSLR kit out there. :p

;)
Click to expand...

I think I saw something about these on the history channel.

Whenever I see red rings mentioned I think about about a certain fast food vendor in the north west. He had a product that's cause any colour ring you'd care to mention.
 
Snip:
woof woof said:
I think I saw something about these on the history channel.
Click to expand...
There's many a good tune played on an old fiddle. However, if you want to go chucking your money about then I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you! ;)
 
Last edited:
Retune said:
If the hood is large enough, you can also use it to enforce social distancing.
Click to expand...
By repeatedly beating the offender over the head with it, while screaming Keep Your Sodding Distance! ?
 
Last edited:
Well, like everybody I had one with my lens. So, I tried it and found shadow down the sides of some of my pictures. I'm afraid I didn't see the point of that and haven't used it since.
 
I always use hoods, but then Canon usually supply them with the lenses! I’ve been using them since about 1977 and see no reason not to. When I was doing football photography hoods also had the additional benefit of helping keep rain off the front element. I did once have a 300mm F2.8 hood broken when a player couldn’t stop and trod on it, the sickening crack as he did it made me think he’d broken his ankle, I was very relieved when he jogged past me and gave me the thumbs up!
 
GordonM said:
I always use hoods, but then Canon usually supply them with the lenses!
Click to expand...
From personal experience, I believe Canon only supply lens hoods for free with their L-series lenses; having said that, they are a premium quality item, with an anti-reflective internal flocked fabric coating.
 
Mr Badger said:
From personal experience, I believe Canon only supply lens hoods for free with their L-series lenses; having said that, they are a premium quality item, with an anti-reflective internal flocked fabric coating.
Click to expand...
Yes they are premium, I forget exactly how much the replacement 300mm F2.8 was after it got cracked, but it was about £120 iirc in 2005ish. I stuck with gaffe tape around it!
 
GordonM said:
Yes they are premium, I forget exactly how much the replacement 300mm F2.8 was after it got cracked, but it was about £120 iirc in 2005ish. I stuck with gaffe tape around it!
Click to expand...
I usually start patiently watching eBay when things like that happen, and hope the tape holds until I find a bargain!
 
Mr Badger said:
Snip:
There's many a good tune played on an old fiddle. However, if you want to go chucking your money about then I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you! ;)
Click to expand...

I chucked my money years ago and will not be going back to DSLR's. They're so last century and so limiting.
 
woof woof said:
I chucked my money years ago and will not be going back to DSLR's. They're so last century and so limiting.
Click to expand...
I'm happy enough with all my (D)SLRs, they still deliver the results I want, so I've never felt the need to spend a lot of money to get the mirrorless equivalent. Each to their own though. :)
 
I've been using SLRs for almost fifty years and know I will never use a mirror-less system. I like to 'see' my image, not an electronic representation of it.
 
Hi, I use lens hoods for all the lenses of the camera systems I actively use: Leica, Nikon(DSLR) and Sony !
 
I use lenshoods all the time for lens protection and Better image quality.
 
nokk said:
i use them all the time. mostly for protection cause i usually carry the lens with the cap off when it's out of the bag. but the hoods can be flipped backwards on the lens for storage so to me they don't take up that much room.
Click to expand...
If you want to protect a lens, use a UV / protection filter
 
Raymond Lin said:
Well Duh, but you know I know that (and anyone who has taking a photo too) and you know I meant when it’s off angle when a hood would otherwise block it.
Click to expand...
That was actually a point I was trying to make earlier with the phrase, 'when the hood comes into play.' There's a relatively small angle when a hood would be both needed and effective for blocking flare. If the light source is out of the frame enough, a hood is unnecessary. If the light source is out front, the hood won't help.

Personally, I run into this situation seldom enough where I can't justify always carrying 60-70% of extra lens volume (hood reversed, do the math) on multiple lenses, especially when organic solutions exist to solve this particular problem (move your feet to change the angle, use your hand to shade the lens, find some out-of-frame shade to stand in.)

Gotta admit, they do make you look cool.
 
soeren said:
They dont actually protect the lens.
Click to expand...
Depends what the lens is being protected from. I'd rather have a filter sandblasted on a windy beach than take a chance that a front element won't get damaged, for example.
 
Of course it's only worth protecting your lenses with a filter if you have a high quality camera like a Nikon dSLR. It's hardly worth bothering if you use Canon or some silly mirrorless system or are one of those dinosaurs still shooting film.

:troll:
 
Marc, useful videos and I fully agree with the first. I am not as negative as him as far as protective filters. I do the opposite in that I only put one on in the exceptional circumstances where there is a risk to damage. This situation has not occurred for me in the last 4 years. I do not need to clean my front very often (almost never). I do not touch them and I am not at risk of anyone else either but, unlike Phil Steele, I keep my lens cap on when not shooting. Even when I last attended a motocross event when I thought I would need to use a filter, I found it unnecessary. If I was photographing the bikes going away from me then there would be a risk of stones or dust but, in practice I wanted shots of bike coming towards me or from the side so the filter was not needed.

Dave
 
Having just taken delivery of my brand-spanky-new Meyer Optik Lydith I'm getting flare quite easily in some of those "shooting into point light" shots which certainly don't trouble the original version.
And at this point I remember that the photos are in the camera and not in the phone. Doh!20200918_173214.jpg
 
mortimerhill said:
What evidence do you have for such a stupid comment
Click to expand...

Because with most modern (zoom) lenses, if they take an impact that would have broken the UV filter, its likely that something will have broken/become misaligned inside. UV/Clear filters have their uses, ie on the beach, dirty/dusty environments, but putting a flat piece of glass on the front of your does not help flare resistance, manufacturers spend lots of time/money on coatings for their lenses.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Depends what the lens is being protected from. I'd rather have a filter sandblasted on a windy beach than take a chance that a front element won't get damaged, for example.
Click to expand...
Deffinitely. Filters can have their use in conditions like that but filters protection against impacts are approx zero
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top