To hood or not to hood?

[Ruano]

When outdoors do you always use a hood? Even if it's cloudy? Thanks for the replies gang O.o

[Geoff F]

For me, Mike, it depends on the individual circumstances.

Generally speaking, yes I still use a hood as it can provide some protection to the lens. But when macro shooting live insects, I prefer not to have anything between the lens and subject which may frighten the little beasties.

[Ruano]

For me, Mike, it depends on the individual circumstances.

Generally speaking, yes I still use a hood as it can provide some protection to the lens. But when macro shooting live insects, I prefer not to have anything between the lens and subject which may frighten the little beasties.

Thanks Geoff for the input O.o

[Squidgy]

Once the camera is out of the bag the hood goes on every time... Even if it's cloudy. I dont use UV filters anymore so the only protection to the front glass comes from the hood. Drop or bang the front end and it's cheaper to replace the hood than the lens.

[shreds]

Cant think of a time when I wouldnt use one. Essential in my view.

[Glenn NK]

Always and everywhere, this includes indoors. The hood on my 24-105 is getting a bit ugly, but the lens is fine - that covers bumping.

The main reason is to keep light off the front element/filter.

Glenn

[Donald]

Very occassionally put one on. My kit lens and the 70-200 f4L have Cokin 'P' filter holder rings permanently fitted to each one so that I can just switch the holder from one lens to the other without having to fiddle about with unscrewing and re-screwing a ring on each time. The 'Z' ring for the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 120-400 does have to go on and off each time.

[kdoc856]

I always have one on with one exception: if I know I'll need to adjust a circular polarizing or a split grad ND filter and my stubby little fingers need to reach. Mostly I want a hood on there cause I fall in the mud more than my share, and I like to have a couple inches of buffer. I dont keep a UV filter on anymore- the hood provides the protection now.

Kevin

[Nass]

I always use protection

[Donald]

I always use protection

Good, but what kind? Some people don't subscribe to the notion that a hood prevents scratches as effectively as a UV filter.

[kdoc856]

I'm afraid Nass is being NASSty

[Ruano]

Thanks for all the input guys...I have filters on my lens but I keep reading Why would you cover your glass with more glass? I think maybe I won't replace the filters I have now other than maybe getting a GND. Looks like I need to keep my hood on...again thanks O.o

[Glenn NK]

Good, but what kind? Some people don't subscribe to the notion that a hood prevents scratches as effectively as a UV filter.

This is one of those "wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole" issues for me.

The hood on some tele lenses is so long that to get at the lens/filter would require some considerable effort. The hood on my TSE 24 is so short as to be useless for protection.

One size fits all isn't a good solution - just my opinion.

Glenn

[Black Pearl]

For me it's not a case of putting a hood on, I never take them off, can't think of a reason I ever would. All the camera bags I have we're bought to fit the lenses I want to carry in them with the hoods attached.

Filter wise it's never a problem as I never really use them - the Sigma 10-20mm has a Hoya Pro1 UV on as the front element is very exposed - I haven't used a polarising filter in years and I've sold all my grads as I carried them about for a year without putting them on once.

[Geoff F]

For me it's not a case of putting a hood on, I never take them off, can't think of a reason I ever would. All the camera bags I have we're bought to fit the lenses I want to carry in them with the hoods attached.

Filter wise it's never a problem as I never really use them - the Sigma 10-20mm has a Hoya Pro1 UV on as the front element is very exposed - I haven't used a polarising filter in years and I've sold all my grads as I carried them about for a year without putting them on once.

Yes, Robin, I partially agree that I tend to keep hoods on some lenses when in my backpack; but my 150-500 lens plus camera is 12 ins and then there is an extra 4 ins of hood. So that causes a problem.

And like you, I sometimes carry polarising filters (which I purchased with UV filters as a special offer) but rarely use them. With digital cameras I find that in most cases I get better results by simply using a bit of exposure compensation even if that sometimes means creating two Raw conversions for merging.

Much the same goes for graduated filters. Occasionally they might help but I don't do a lot of that sort of photography. Those shots are more a case of unexpected situations for me.

Also, having just looked at my hoods, I find they are covered in scratches, some quite deep. I don't know if this has helped to save my lens (even with a UV filter) or it is more a case of they have become scratched because they were in the way.

And UV filters, being my second line of defence, still cost money so I don't really want to damage them.

[krispix]

Like Donald I tend to have Cokin filter holders fixed to all my lenses 95% of the time. I have Cokin Lens Hoods, but there not very effective and a bit of a pain, so I only tend to use them when the sun is at that awkward angle. If I'm just doing a 'carry about' with one lens (normally 18-200mm) I'll ditch the Cokin gear and will probably use the lens hood for a bit of added protection.

[rpcrowe]

I will almost always use a hood except when I am shooting with my 90mm f/2.8 Tamron Macro. The front element of that lens is so far back in the lens barrel that it is like having a hood on. I bought the lens used and it did not come with a hood and I never bought a hood for it. It is easier to shoot macros using the barrel itself to shield and protect the front element rather than adding a hood.

Other hoods will protect the lens from flare and from physical damage. With the above exception, I use a hood whenever I shoot.

The only problems with a hood are the size of some of them which can make the hood cumbersome to use and to store and the fact that it can be difficult to rotate a polarizing filter when a hood is mounted.

I have gravitated to using a generic round screw-in lens hood on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. This type of hood solved several problems:

1. It screws right into the front threads of a CPL filter and rotating the CPL is as simple as rotating the hood.

2. It protects from flare with my 1.6x cameras quite adequately since the enormous OEM Canon hood is designed for using the lens on a full-frame camera. It will not vignette at any focal length.

3. It protects the lens from physical damage as well if not better than the OEM hood. I fell with the 70-200mm f/4L IS and round hood hitting the concrete hood first propelled by my large bulk. The hood was toast but the lens came through unscathed. This generic hood was one the best six dollar investments I have ever made, It saved a very expensive lens. Perhaps the OEM hood would have protected the lens as well. Anyone want to try it?



5. I carry my two cameras using an OPTECH Dual Harness which means that the lens is protruding out from my side. The profile of the OEM hood is a lot larger than that of the generic hood and I would often bang it on a doorframe or lose it in a crowd. The generic hood stays in place more securely and I do not bang it around as much because it is smaller.

Unfortunately there are some lenses which will vignette with a round hood. These include my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and my 12-24mm Tokina f/4. I use a bayonet hood with these lenses although I have purchased Chinese knock-off hoods (I have two in case I lose one) for my 17-55mm. I did use a round screw-in hood quite effectively with my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens on a 1.6x camera.

The ideal lens hood is the one on my 300mm f/4L IS lens which is built-in and retractable. I wish the 70-200mm family of "L" lenses had retractable hoods.

I have seen some handy photographers route out a finger slot at the bottom of an bayonet style hood which allows the polarizer to be rotated while still on the camera. I have not tried it but, if someone wants to experiment, I would recommend experimenting on a cheap Chinese knock-off hood rather than the expensive OEM variety.

[kdoc856]

Richard,

that was a very helpful addition to the discussion. I'd never even thought about a screw-in hood till you mentioned it. I think it would be quite helpful for the type of shooting I usually do. this is why I keep on readin' you guys. Thanks1

Kevin

[Glenn NK]

Unfortunately there are some lenses which will vignette with a round hood. These include my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and my 12-24mm Tokina f/4. I use a bayonet hood with these lenses although I have purchased Chinese knock-off hoods (I have two in case I lose one) for my 17-55mm. I did use a round screw-in hood quite effectively with my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens on a 1.6x camera.

Richard:

This comment intrigues me. I have the same lens, but didn't get the Canon hood made for it (it annoys me that a lens this costly didn't come with a hood).

I've been using the hood from my 24-105, and as far as I can tell, it works nicely. Of course it has "cut-outs" at the corners so doesn't vignette. Since this hood is made for a FF body, on my 30D with the narrower field of view, there is no vignetting.

But I never would have suspected that the "proper" hood would vignette.

Interesting.

Glenn

[Andrew1]

I think the use of hoods and UV filters comes down to personal choice and how you use the camera on each excursion. Hoods are primarily to shield the front glass face from direct light which can cause flare. Most of my shots are on bright sunny days outdoors with lots of snow or water around so for me the hood is a must and in fact sometimes gets supplemented with a ball cap or newspaper to shield the lens. Because of the locations there is always a polarizer on my lenses as well unless it's a real wide angle shot in which the effects will differ from one side of the frame to the other. Protection from bangs is a secondary benefit that may or may not come into play depending on how you handle your camera. It certainly doesn't hurt. For some of my lenses I prefer a collapsible rubber screw in hood because they don't have to be removed when they go in and out of the carry bag. UV filters were meant to reduce the effects of UV light on film. For those, lens protection usually held equal billing with the UV purpose. On a digital camera UV is not a concern so plain glass will do if you're still looking to keep the front of your expensive lens clean. Many don't use the UV filter for one reason or another. If your primarily an indoor shooter then you don't need if for the UV aspect. Others think it's a purer form of photography but unless they are dealing with a $10 poor quality filter that's severely effecting the light there's no noticeable impact. I've seen photos taken through a lens with a badly cracked front element that hardly shows any negative results. If you shoot outdoors 99% of the time like I do, in the area I shoot in, then protection is definitely needed. There is almost never any absence of wind where I've lived. Sand, dirt and rain are a daily consideration so I'll gladly replace the front filter yearly rather than a lens. Unless you're using coke bottle problems they won't be a problem. I personally used a cracked one for a while that did not manifest itself on the film until I used a flash. That was just lucky though. Use the best filter you can afford to protect the more expensive lens. Watch how you build up the layers. A polarizer, UV and hood has a good potential for vignetting but of course they are easily removable.