Do you really use a hood with your lens.

slt_roopan

slt_roopan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,774
Name
Rooban
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Do you really prefer to use a hood with your lens. I find it uncomfortable and inconvenient so generally try to avoid it.

A school of thought says that Pictures taken with a lens hood installed will generally have richer colors, deeper saturation.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers.
R
 
Always.....it's there for protection more than anything.
 
Yes, virtually always.
About the only time I wouldn't use a lens hood is the rare times it would stop me getting close enough for a macro shot.
 
always use the hoods - mine are taped on! lots of treads about this.
 
I use a hood 99% of the time very rare indeed that I don't use one.
Protects the front lens element and reduces flair which gives improved contrast :)
 
Always, they don't just design and make them for the fun of it.
 
Almost never, unless I'm using my Siggy 12-24mm and then I use one all the time. Cos it's built into the lens :)
 
Always.
Except on my 35mm which I lost the hood for and haven't gotten round to replacing yet...after 15 years...
 
Arkady said:
Always.
Except on my 35mm which I lost the hood for and haven't gotten round to replacing yet...after 15 years...
Click to expand...

15 years :D

Do you feel the absence of hood when you use it or did you ever felt that if you wish you had......or something like that.
 
slt_roopan said:
15 years :D

Do you feel the absence of hood when you use it or did you ever felt that if you wish you had......or something like that.
Click to expand...

To be fair it sat in a drawer for twelve years after I bought a 28-70 f/2.8, then got sold to another TP member about five years ago who pointed out that it had an oily iris and was FUBAR'd... I got it back and refunded his money, then put it back in a drawer til three months ago when I got it serviced over here in Germany.
It's been my walkabout lens ever since, but since I almost never walk anywhere now, it's still not getting as much use as my new 24-70 f/2.8, which is miles sharper anyway...
 
There are people on these forums who have actually accidently dropped their camera and it has hit the ground lens first and the only thing that saved the glass from damage was the lens hood.

I would rather replace a lens hood at around £5 - £10 than £500 for a new lens.
 
AFC said:
There are people on these forums who have actually accidently dropped their camera and it has hit the ground lens first and the only thing that saved the glass from damage was the lens hood.

I would rather replace a lens hood at around £5 - £10 than £500 for a new lens.
Click to expand...

Me...a 24-70 and an 80-200 on two bodies during the same fall into a muddy ditch in the dark...
Both hoods were sheared off and pushed up the lens barrels (and subsequently taped back in place with gaffer-tape) - I think that may have softened the impact though both UV filters were also scratched beyond further use.
 
Mine never comes off. Unless cleaning ofcourse.
If some prat comes speeding at me on his skateboard I would rather him scratch/crack my £15.00 hood than my £1000 lens.
 
Arkady said:
To be fair it sat in a drawer for twelve years after I bought a 28-70 f/2.8, then got sold to another TP member about five years ago who pointed out that it had an oily iris and was FUBAR'd... I got it back and refunded his money, then put it back in a drawer til three months ago when I got it serviced over here in Germany.
It's been my walkabout lens ever since, but since I almost never walk anywhere now, it's still not getting as much use as my new 24-70 f/2.8, which is miles sharper anyway...
Click to expand...

Now got the equation right. Cheers Arkady.

AFC said:
There are people on these forums who have actually accidently dropped their camera and it has hit the ground lens first and the only thing that saved the glass from damage was the lens hood.

I would rather replace a lens hood at around £5 - £10 than £500 for a new lens.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Thank you.
 
AdamPearcey said:
Mine never comes off. Unless cleaning ofcourse.
If some prat comes speeding at me on his skateboard I would rather him scratch/crack my £15.00 hood than my £1000 lens.
Click to expand...


Cheers Adam.

I've learnt one thing about the skateboard guys....Don't ever look at them to see which direction they are heading, instead start looking at the skate boards.

They look in some direction, show hands in some other direction and they take turn in exactly opposite direction. :shrug:
 
Always use the hood,if the lens dont come with one i buy one..i have to smile when i see people using cameras with the hood on,but reversed..seen a lot of this lately..:lol:
Maybe it's just me..:D
 
STARRIDER said:
Always use the hood,if the lens dont come with one i buy one..i have to smile when i see people using cameras with the hood on,but reversed..seen a lot of this lately..:lol:
Maybe it's just me..:D
Click to expand...

Out of use and in the bag mine is always reversed..But always on properly in use:thumbs:
 
Always. Shooting on a wedding day I can use anything from 2-6 lenses. If I can find the time to keep popping them on and off then anyone can. It's not difficult. If you find it so inconvenient you could always leave them on permanently or gaffer tape them on.
 
Always, help protect the lens should the worst happen.
 
AFC said:
I would rather replace a lens hood at around £5 - £10 than £500 for a new lens.
Click to expand...

You are either hopeless optermistic or have never replaced a Nikon lens hood :D

Cheaper than the lens, yes, "cheap" errrrm no.

As to the original question... if you understand the purpose of the OEM equipment as it comes out the box, you'll use the lens hood - I mean you'll also use the end caps supplied won't you?

Re the comment about shooting with the hood reversed - probably using a CPL... try twiddling one of those down a huge lens hood... Thats about the only time you'll catch me without the hood.
 
I always do even with it being a monster on the end of the 24-70 ED. Essential added protection for me.
 
desantnik said:
probably using a CPL... try twiddling one of those down a huge lens hood... Thats about the only time you'll catch me without the hood.
Click to expand...


One of the inconveniences I face is same as above.

With thick stack CPLs, carrying multiple lenses, to keep covering with the lens cap( not center pinch) in open dusty areas, having a hood is :bonk:
 
Depends if you have 10 seconds... Maybe if you are shooting landscapes thats ok.
 
Jeff.B said:
Always. With camera over shoulder I bent down for something out of the camera bag and the camera slipped off my shoulder, bounced on the concrete floor lens hood first, no damage at all.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Great to know this.
 
Ir's a no brainer - use a hood always. If you really doubt the benefits, think about how you shield your eyes with your hands on bright days to see better -it's exactly the same principle. Reduced flare from scattered light = better colour saturation and contrast.
 
Every lens I own has a hood, every time I shoot I use the hood.

Protection from the elements is handy. Protection from my ultimate cluminess is very good. Every lens I have owned/sold has been in mint condition. Nearly every lens hood has been scratched to buggery often with distinct nicks round the edges. Never had a significant drop to my memory, but had plenty of knocks where the flex of the hood means no damage.

Oh yea, and I rather like the fact they help with flare as well.
 
I never used to use the hood (simply because I was lazy really - no excuse at all), then I bought a 100 - 400mm L series lens and started using it on that and all my lenses and really noticed the difference in my shots so I'm a convert!

Only inconvenience for me is that I can't get the lens in the camera bag with the hood on so have to spend time reversing the hood to get it in (not such a prob). More of a prob is when I want to take a shot fast (wildlife or something that won't stand still) and I have to faff around putting the hood back on the right way before I take the shot. I could of course get a different bag but I'm happy with the current size/weight of my bag and the ease of grabbing the camera while walking etc.

:)
 
Surely if you are out looking for wildlife you have your camera ready to go... not in a bag??!

Once I reach my area of operation for the day its camera out and setup ready for whatever op appears with all the other gear close at hand for deployment (flash, raincover, ND filters, spare batteries etc)

Or is that the difference between me going out with my mission to take photos and just going out somewhere to do something and taking a camera with you "just in case"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top