Lens hoods - do I really need to use them?

T

The Pielander

Messages
128
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
I've come to the conclusion that I really don't like lens hoods. The hassle of having to constantly take them on and off and reverse them to get the lens to fit in my bag is a chore. Not to mention when it doesn't screw on straight first time. That got me thinking - if I stop using lens hoods will I really see a difference in my pictures?
 
Depends really, a hood can reduce flare depending on where the sun is, some lenses are more prone to this than others. I also find a hood handy if your shooting in a light drizzle or at the coast as it can help any rain/spray getting on your lens. Some people say that it can help with contrast too but I havent really noticed that.
 
maybe not in every picture, they are not a con to make you spend more (if they didnt come with the lens). I have used lens hoods on all my lenses and never really had a problem with stray light or flare unless pretty much shooting directly into a light source.

The main reason i like hoods are for the protection of the front element. MAny time i have misjudged the lens length and clipped the hood on a door, narrow passage. It also means i dont fiddle with lens caps all the time. It also stops unwanted finger prints etc!
 
The Pielander said:
if I stop using lens hoods will I really see a difference in my pictures?
Click to expand...

I'd say you would if the sun was angled across the front element of your lens. Huge chance of flare being very evident on your pictures then. I agree that the threaded ones can be a pain at times, but aren't most hoods a bayonet fitting these days ?

My favourite hoods are left-overs from pre-digital days. They are the rubber type that concertina into a nice compact space and offer great lens protection at all times. Not as "cool" as the petal shaped ones currently popular but that doesn't worry me one bit.
 
tuscan30 said:
I'd say you would if the sun was angled across the front element of your lens. Huge chance of flare being very evident on your pictures then. I agree that the threaded ones can be a pain at times, but aren't most hoods a bayonet fitting these days ?

My favourite hoods are left-overs from pre-digital days. They are the rubber type that concertina into a nice compact space and offer great lens protection at all times. Not as "cool" as the petal shaped ones currently popular but that doesn't worry me one bit.
Click to expand...

Couldn`t agree more. 3 hoods in one fitting. These petal hoods are useless.
 
classcams said:
Couldn`t agree more. 3 hoods in one fitting. These petal hoods are useless.
Click to expand...

The only word of advice to give on hoods it make sure you have the right hood for your focal length and crop factor on the camera.

Canon EF lenses and their hoods are designed for full frame. i have a 17-40 with lens hood thats really wide petal shape, almost oval in shape. Fine on the 5DII useless on my 50D as its roughly 27-65mm comparitively, a difference of 23 degrees narrower FOV which means the lens hood designed for 90 degrees is not going to shade a FOV of 67 degrees.

This is a extreme example as its on the wde angle lens and matters less as the FOV reduces on longer focal length lenses.
 
The Pielander said:
The hassle of having to constantly take them on and off and reverse them to get the lens to fit in my bag is a chore.
Click to expand...

What you need is a bigger bag and a roll of electrical tape to tape yoour hoods on! Mine are taped on - never come off!
 
33L said:
The only word of advice to give on hoods it make sure you have the right hood for your focal length and crop factor on the camera.

Canon EF lenses and their hoods are designed for full frame. i have a 17-40 with lens hood thats really wide petal shape, almost oval in shape. Fine on the 5DII useless on my 50D as its roughly 27-65mm comparitively, a difference of 23 degrees narrower FOV which means the lens hood designed for 90 degrees is not going to shade a FOV of 67 degrees.

This is a extreme example as its on the wde angle lens and matters less as the FOV reduces on longer focal length lenses.
Click to expand...

I believe some people opt to use the hood from the 24L on the 17-40 when it is on a crop sensor.
 
I'd say yes, mainly for protection as you can do without a skylight or uv filter (which defeats the object of all that nice coating on your lens!) if using a hood.
 
lens hoods don't complete the environmental sealing on some lenses though, and don't protect the front element when a really shallow hood is equipped.
 
trencheel303 said:
I believe some people opt to use the hood from the 24L on the 17-40 when it is on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...
I used the EW-83J hood on my 17-40 on a crop body, this hood is normally used for the 17-55/f2.8.

I tend to leave hoods on my lenses all the time.
 
There are people on these threads that have dropped a lens with the front end taking the full blow, luckly they had a lens hood on.

What would you prefer to replace a) £500 lens or b) £5-10 lens hood?.

I know peeps say but I don't intend to drop mine, neither did they but it happens. Also protects your lenses against accidently brushing up against objects.
 
AFC said:
There are people on these threads that have dropped a lens with the front end taking the full blow, luckly they had a lens hood on.

What would you prefer to replace a) £500 lens or b) £5-10 lens hood?.

I know peeps say but I don't intend to drop mine, neither did they but it happens. Also protects your lenses against accidently brushing up against objects.
Click to expand...

Totally :agree:

Shooting without the protection of a lenshood is like shooting without the protection of a condom - you'll get away with it only for so long, then it's gonna hurt or cost a fortune - or both :eek:

:D

DD

EDIT - oh and at my last Wedding I pulled the camera, lens and flash off a table on the grass - it hit lenshood first and dug a hole in the ground - all worked fine (even the lenshood) but without it the lens would have been at best filthy and scratched, and it could have been much worse)
 
Last edited:
If i can leave the hoods on place whilst the lenses are stowed away in the bag then they stay like that if i have to reverse i hardly find a nuisance, unless of course you are changeing lenses every 5 minutes.
For personal stuff i very rarely go out with more that 1-2 lenses, if 2 then its only jsut incase i might need the different FOV.

To the OP are yours screw in hoods or bayonet fit? The latter being so much easier to use.
 
DiddyDave said:
Shooting without the protection of a lenshood is like shooting without the protection of a condom - you'll get away with it only for so long, then it's gonna hurt or cost a fortune - or both :eek:
Click to expand...

Plus it's not embarrassing to arrive with a lens hood already on. Another plus, it doesn't take up any more storage space either as you can just pop it on back to front (don't try that with a condom though).
 
I use hoods all the time, it's an automatic habit and takes no time at all.

It's mainly for protection, and although they do make a difference in some situations (and a huge difference now and then) they have certainly saved my lenses from a few knocks over the years, and stopped me getting my own sticky fingers all over the front element (which is death to image quality).

But on the IQ side, modern lenses are very good at resisting flare these days and very few hoods are actually optimum in practise anyway. On a zoom they can only ever be optimum at the shortest end.

One situation where a hood does make a big difference is shooting pure white backgrounds in studio prortaits. There is always tons of very bright light just outside the image area and for that I put the big hood off a 100-400L on my 24-105L. It's just about perfect from around 80 to 105mm and lifts the contrast to add a nice bit of pop (y)
 
You don't have to use them. It's entirely up to you, but I agree with the previous posters. They offer good protection against knocks, and do help to eliminate flare if the sun catches the front of the lens. Lenses with the front element deeply recessed probably don't really need this protection, but I use them anyway.

Will you actually see any difference in the images? I don't know. Some people believe they do help to increase contrast but I've spent the last 30 odd years in Africa - under some searing sun - and increasing contrast was usually the last thing I wanted to do!
 
HoppyUK said:
On a zoom they can only ever be optimum at the shortest end.
Click to expand...

would you say this is true for the canon 24-70 too. Curious thats all since the hood is the shallowest at the widest setting?
 
33L said:
would you say this is true for the canon 24-70 too. Curious thats all since the hood is the shallowest at the widest setting?
Click to expand...

It's one of only two lenses that I know of which zoom in the 'opposite' direction quite so neatly, thus maintaining optimum hood coverage, or at least close to it. I think the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is similar.

Can't think of any others though.
 
HoppyUK said:
It's one of only two lenses that I know of which zoom in the 'opposite' direction quite so neatly, thus maintaining optimum hood coverage, or at least close to it. I think the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is similar.

Can't think of any others though.
Click to expand...


the nikon 24-70 is the same. My old 24-85 zoomed the same way and the 18-55 mm kit lens is physically shortest at 35mm. I had assumed most mid range zooms worked in the same (slightly counter intuitive) way
 
Thanks for all the replies. All of the hoods on my lenses are the bayonet type but I just find them a faff to fit and reverse to get the lens back in my bag. My least favourite is the one on my Canon 10-22mm. Without the hood the lens will fit in a lens case. Put the hood on and suddenly the overall diameter is huge. I can see the argument for using them as protection but I'm wondering if they actually do anything. The fact that Canon sells non L lenses without a hood made me wonder if it is a con! Do Nikon do the same thing?
 
oh yes i know the 10-22mm (used it before going FF) and the 17-40mm hoods are the same. I must admit i stow them away in a side pocket.
 
Some of my lens hoods are battered and bruised from various knocks and bumps. Not because I dont care about my kit, partially because I'm clumsy and mainly because accidents happen. Lens hood and UV filter keeps me calm.
 
The Pielander said:
I can see the argument for using them as protection but I'm wondering if they actually do anything. The fact that Canon sells non L lenses without a hood made me wonder if it is a con! Do Nikon do the same thing?
Click to expand...

You've been given a lot of good advice about lens hoods - but like a lot of people on TP you don't really want to know - so just carry on! Why ask for advice and then dismiss it?
 
Last edited:
awp said:
You've been given a lot of good advice about lens hoods - but like a lot of people on TP you don't really want to know - so just carry on! Why ask for advice and then dismiss it?
Click to expand...


Ain`t that the bloody truth................:bang:
 
Well I use hoods all the time rather the UV filters. That is until I just smashed the one from my 18-200 walkabout!
 
The Pielander said:
The fact that Canon sells non L lenses without a hood made me wonder if it is a con! Do Nikon do the same thing?
Click to expand...

No, of course it's not a con, but it can be irritating when expensive lenses like the 17-55mm F2.8 come without a hood.

Some of my manual Nikkors came with hoods, others didn't. I have no idea what Nikon's policy is now.

As I said before, just please yourself. You've been given good advice, and it really doesn't make any difference to the rest of us.
 
As far as i know the new sigma 70-200 are shipping w3ith 2 hoods depending on the crop factor of the camera. Now thats what i call responding to customer needs.
 
Martyn... said:
I never use a lens without a hood fitted ... for protection if nothing else.
Click to expand...

Same here, doesn't feel right taking shots without one fitted. Bit like riding a bike without wearing a helmet, it can be done but it's going to be painful when it goes wrong.
 
I am a great believer of lens hoods, but the Tamron 90mm macro is a rather strange. They supply a lens hood, but the front element is about 2" inside the body.
 
Hi

I always use lens hoods for the following reasons;

Shooting into the sun improves contrast and cuts down flare (more important with cheaper multi-coating). Think of when you put your hand above your eyes to look at something more clearly, or a windscreen driving into the sun.

Protection when walking (or falling over!) I've walked into an anti-car bollard at night and chipped the paint on the hood.

With a lens hood I can change lenses and put the spare in my bag or even coat pocket without putting the front cap on, knowing It won't be scratched on any grit in my pocket - saves time if you need to change lenses quickly.

Interesting read with images;
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/47414-about-lens-hoods-important.html
Mentions the Canon and Nikon "reverse" zooms as well.

QS
 
I am in the camp of always using one, as with most people I like the peace of mind knowing that there is a hood in front of the lens for protection.

the hood on my main lens is showing some scuffs, presumably these would be on the lens had it not had the hood on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top