Do you really use a hood with your lens.

desantnik said:
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"?
Click to expand...


Yeah of course I have the camera out - but I work in a tropical rain forest and am walking all day over really steep terrain. Occasionally the camera gets put away!

There's also a difference between waiting somewhere for wildlife to come to you, and opportunistically spotting wildlife whilst in between areas and /or photographing wildlife that doesn't have specific, predictable areas it regularly frequents.

:)

It also rains a fair bit where I work so the camera may have to go away for that too! :)

Anyway, this thread isn't about whether or not I carry my camera around all the time - the OP wanted to know about lens hoods and I was just mentioning my own experience and the one small inconvenience :)
 
Last edited:
Does it make a difference at night? ie. would it still be beneficial for outdoor night party shots or shots in dark clubs?
 
Have never used a hood and when asked if I wanted to buy one to go with my new 15-85 the other day I declined.
 
Phiggys said:
Protects the front lens element and reduces flair which gives improved contrast :)
Click to expand...

Reduces flair? That's the last thing I need! Reducing flare is a good thing (and does indeed improve contrast).

I have hoods for all my lenses and they live (reversed) on the lenses in the bag. The reversed hoods take up little extra room and may even give a little bit of protection due to the slight deformation they can take before they touch the lens barrel. As soon as they're on the camera, they get put on right way round (a couple of seconds' work) and away I go.

Yes, Pols in a hood are a bit of a pain but the knurling on the front rim is enough to get purchase to turn the filter slightly. Slight nuisance factor only, far outweighed (IMO) by the benefits a hood gives.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Last winter I was out with my camera over my shoulder when I slipped on some ice and ended up on my arse. The lens hood took a whack on the ground as well. If the hood hadn't have been on, it would have been the front element that took the blow. I doubt it would've ended well.
 
The only time I don't is if there's a lot of us at the football and you're all bunched together...someone has a lens hood on then it's going to block everyone else's view...

There's always one though :bonk:
 
Ever since I started using hoods a good few months ago now, I feel lenses are naked without them. The hood for my 85 keeps spinning around and falling off, so I electrical taped the bloody thing on - it'll do until I decide to replace it with a proper hood. Lens hoods are like eyebrows and eyelids I suppose, and I wouldn't be without mine :gag:

My reasons for using the hood is for protection of the front element, I have never seen conclusive evidence to suggest that they are effective at combatting flare.
 
Last edited:
trencheel303 said:
Ever since I started using hoods a good few months ago now, I feel lenses are naked without them. The hood for my 85 keeps spinning around and falling off, so I electrical taped the bloody thing on - it'll do until I decide to replace it with a proper hood. Lens hoods are like eyebrows and eyelids I suppose, and I wouldn't be without mine :gag:

My reasons for using the hood is for protection of the front element, I have never seen conclusive evidence to suggest that they are effective at combatting flare.
Click to expand...

A good analogy :clap:
 
trencheel303 said:
My reasons for using the hood is for protection of the front element, I have never seen conclusive evidence to suggest that they are effective at combatting flare.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

Lens elements, groups, reflections, and flare— some geeky math fun

Lens flare is closely related to the number of secondary reflections in a lens, i.e., light entering the lens that is reflected off one lens surface, then another, then back to the image plane. For uncoated air-to-glass surfaces, about 4% of the incident light is reflected. Simple coating reduces the reflection to around 2%; muti-coating reduces it to 1% or less. For a simple coating, the amount of the secondary reflection is 0.02 * 0.02 = 0.0004, which doesn't seem like much until you calculate the number of reflections.

A lens consists of N elements in M groups, where a group may consist of several elements cemented together. It's the number of groups M— actually the number of air-to-glass surfaces 2M— that really counts. The first surface has no secondary reflection. The second surface has 1: light that bounces off the second surface, then the first, then back to the image plane. Continuing with this reasoning, we see that the m(th) surface has m-1 secondary reflections, i.e.,

Total reflections = R = (2M-1) + (2M-2) + (2M-3) + ... + 1 = M (2M-1) = 2M2-M
If you add a filter to a lens with M groups, you increase the number of reflections R by 4M+1.

As the number of groups in a lens increases so does the potential for reflections.

Zooms typically have more elements than primes. Examples (easy to locate in the Canon Museum): The Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM has 18 elements in 13 groups. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM has 7 elements in 6 groups. The Canon 90mm f/2.8 TS-E has 6 elements in 5 groups. Now you know one reason primes are still used (others are large apertures, light weight, and excellent sharpness (MTF)), as well as why some photographers avoid using filters (though a UV filter is useful protection for field work).

Full article here http://www.imatest.com/docs/veilingglare.html

You asked for that :D (techy geeky stuff) :lol:
 
Cheers AliB

But we've been discussing about that initial reflection hitting the front element.
 
I always use my hoods.. do you really want to risk the front element, or a shot ruined due to getting some nasty crud on the lens or flare in the image that you didn't really want?

I think you will find that most of the more serious photographers on here wouldn't leave the house without one.. ESPECIALLY if they are professional.. so if it helps give the pro's a better images.. then why on earth wouldn't you want the same.. unless there is a logistical reason, or is impractical some one reason or another..
 
slt_roopan said:
Cheers AliB

But we've been discussing about that initial reflection hitting the front element.
Click to expand...

The front element doesn't operate in isolation from the other internal elements - any extraneous light hitting that front element will also have an impact on the other elements...

They're clear, you see...light passes through them...:lol:
 
Arkady said:
The front element doesn't operate in isolation from the other internal elements - any extraneous light hitting that front element will also have an impact on the other elements...

They're clear, you see...light passes through them...:lol:
Click to expand...

I thought I've missed it...the passing light.

Cheers Arkady. You've finished it.
 
I use a lens hood with all my lenses, to avoid flare problems and especially to protect them, since I'm not a fan of protection filters.
 
Thought I'd post this as clarification.

Took this with the sun about 45' to the left and shining on the front element, in the first image you can clearly see a lack of contrast (but no flare), the second image had my hand blocking the sun off (the hood is on a 16-45 so not very deep).

fox2.jpg


(Excuse the quality of the image - it was the first of the day to check I didn't have silly settings - I'd normally delete but then thought it would be useful for this thread).

QS
 
Quantum Sprite said:
Thought I'd post this as clarification.

Took this with the sun about 45' to the left and shining on the front element, in the first image you can clearly see a lack of contrast (but no flare), the second image had my hand blocking the sun off (the hood is on a 16-45 so not very deep).

fox2.jpg


(Excuse the quality of the image - it was the first of the day to check I didn't have silly settings - I'd normally delete but then thought it would be useful for this thread).

QS
Click to expand...

Good man - a very practical demonstration of the benefits for the doubters. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top