Lens Hoods II

Myky D

Myky D

Suspended / Banned
Messages
559
Edit My Images
No
Hey fans,

Having recovered from getting raped by Crazy Cameras (Yes I know, well done - pat on the head and a cookie for the children at the back), I am now going to go to one of the many camera shops in this part of central Mordor, and pick up a 50mm f1.8, a polarizing filter, and probably a lens hood.

The lens hood I understand from you lot to aid contrast and ambient light noise. However, I was wondering if any of you had any before/after or, rather with/without shots that you could show me to illustrate the value of buying one.

Initially I thought that with a 50mm I wouldn't need one, but it seems the chap in the shop thinks I do (though obviously he's also after a sale).

Is anyone able to help? Preferably shots with and without a lens hood that are taken on a 50mm, but just with/without hood on any lens should do the trick.

Cheers,

Myky D
 
and pick up a 50mm f1.8, a polarizing filter, and probably a lens hood

did a lot of looking before buying a C-PL -- and reading threads here
finally - based on a lab test report - purchased a Marumi DHG 72mm ....."here"
I couldn't afford the Super DHG................your 52mm DHG lists at £35

also good reports here from users that the Hoya HD C-PL is excellent
however the over-riding thought is "dont buy cheap"
so unless your local camera shop stocks Hoya HD or Marumi, I would buy elsewhere

lens hood - always - cheap enough so why not ?
 
Yardbent said:
and pick up a 50mm f1.8, a polarizing filter, and probably a lens hood

did a lot of looking before buying a C-PL -- and reading threads here
finally - based on a lab test report - purchased a Marumi DHG 72mm ....."here"
I couldn't afford the Super DHG................your 52mm DHG lists at £35

also good reports here from users that the Hoya HD C-PL is excellent
however the over-riding thought is "dont buy cheap"
so unless your local camera shop stocks Hoya HD or Marumi, I would buy elsewhere

lens hood - always - cheap enough so why not ?
Click to expand...

Erm ... thanks. Yes - I'll be getting a decent polarizing filter. However, a lens hood is about £20 and I ain't made of cash. Wondered if anyone had some shots I could look at before I decide so that I can compare and contrast?
 
Well, the Canon fifties have a front element which is quite well recessed into the body of the lens. A hood will help protect flying crap from hitting it (unless it's coming directly at the lens in which case you'll need a filter to stop the front element from being struck), but, if you were to fall onto the lens or something I'm not sure either the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 would still live to see another day.

The thing with putting a polarizer on the lens is you will lose - I think - roughly a stop of light (it is a little less with good (more expensive) filters) so you will need to take it off when you don't need it else you kind of negate the point of having a very fast lens. For me, that's pretty much a deal breaker as I hate screwing and unscrewing a filter constantly.

When my 50mm arrives, I will probably not be hooding it, and it will be unlikely that I apply a protection filter. When one sees a video like this, it raises questions as to just how strong the glass is in practice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8

Disclaimer: that is not my video, and I do not condone doing that.

It looks like I am going to have my two fifties for a short time before getting rid of the obsolete one, so I plan to do tests. If I can hood it as well I will also do tests, but I doubt there would be any discernable difference.
 
Hmmm. That's interesting. Will a hood not make any diffence to the image, then? I understood it would help with contrast and reduce ambient noise.
 
I have never heard of a hood reducing noise, they are apparently supposed to reduce flares from stray light hitting the glass, but again I have never noticed any real world difference in comparisons that I have done. In certain situations it could help (if you have a normal or long focal length - UWA lenses have such shallow hoods that they really don't do much). The biggest thing for me is protection, I am often in conditions which need my front element to be protected from strikes, and I always put the hood on to prevent that. The 50mm 1.8 really isn't worth spending as much money on protecting though, because a hood and good filter would be approaching 2/3 to half the price of the lens anyway.
 
trencheel303 said:
I have never heard of a hood reducing noise, they are apparently supposed to reduce flares from stray light hitting the glass, but again I have never noticed any real world difference in comparisons that I have done. In certain situations it could help (if you have a normal or long focal length - UWA lenses have such shallow hoods that they really don't do much). The biggest thing for me is protection, I am often in conditions which need my front element to be protected from strikes, and I always put the hood on to prevent that. The 50mm 1.8 really isn't worth spending as much money on protecting though, because a hood and good filter would be approaching 2/3 to half the price of the lens anyway.
Click to expand...

Hoorah! That's the answer I was looking for! Excellent - thank you.

OK - so - I take it it won't help with the contrast either, no?
 
Contrast from the 50mm is excellent anyway, and due to the recessed element I have only ever had it affected when the sun is in or near the frame, hence a lens hood would be no use anyway.
 
Canon lens hoods are ridiculously expensive, but I've bought a couple from Hong Kong on eBay for a lot less. There are a few third party ones around too.
 
Flare can (and does) reduce contrast - the extraneous light bouncing around inside the lens sees to that for you. On my 50, I use a rubber folding hood. Great for shooting through glass since I can hold the front of the hood against the surface while moving the camera around. The hood stays pressed against the glass so stops most reflections from the glass. IIRC, the hood came from Jessops and was about a fiver. Of course, a rubber hood doesn't offer as much protection from knoscks as a solid plastic one does but it does cushion any knocks.
 
Myky D said:
Hoorah! That's the answer I was looking for! Excellent - thank you.

OK - so - I take it it won't help with the contrast either, no?
Click to expand...

I would not dream of NOT using a Hood they have always been a permanent feature on my lenses. They do reduce flare in against the light shots. they do increase contrast in similar situations. They do protect the lens from knocks and light rain.

The problem is with wide aperture Zooms. In reality the hood needs to zoom too. so the result is that most of them are more effective at the wide setting as they do not shield the lens enough at long zooms. But they are still better than nothing. Professional hoods on large format and cine cameras look more like Bellows and can be adjusted .

Many single focal length tele lenses have built in hoods that can be retracted.

Hoods are essential.
 
Thanks for the replies all. The first bit of work I'll be doing is photographing artwork indoors, so I figure I won't need a hood for that, as there won't be anything flying at me, I won't be shooting into the sun, and I'll need the fastest lens I can find because they've specified absolutely no flash to be used.

Cheers for all the responses. When I'm able to buy a zoom, however, I'll be sure to get a hood.

I'm not really into photographing driving or football games, so won't need to protect lenses from having stuff thrown at them.
 
with my Canon 50mm f/1.8 I bought an old-skool rubber hood from Jessops.

Cost me little over a fiver IIRC. Bonus points for not having to take it off and reverse it for storage, just pop it out, which made it quick and easy to deploy.

On the 50mm f/1.4 that eventually replaced it, I use the appropriate Canon hood.
 
Lens hoods are a must! I had a couple of lenses for a wedding with them and had no issues from it. the kit lens doesn't have a hood and one great photo was ruined due to light flare and the bloody uv filter made it 10 times worse!

I've tried rescuing in PP but I don't think I can :(

I will be getting one asap for my kit lens and 50mm and any future lenses.
 
Myky D said:
Erm ... thanks. Yes - I'll be getting a decent polarizing filter. However, a lens hood is about £20 and I ain't made of cash. Wondered if anyone had some shots I could look at before I decide so that I can compare and contrast?
Click to expand...

should you be looking for a Hoya Pro-1 filter... I have one .."here"

cheers
 
Harvey_nikon said:
the kit lens doesn't have a hood and one great photo was ruined due to light flare and the bloody uv filter made it 10 times worse!
Click to expand...

What caused the flare - are you able to show us the photo?? I'd bet my next wagepacket that a hood wouldn't have saved it.

For protection, yes, hoods are great, but as for reducing flare, I don't see the logic, and I've never seen any proof that they actually do. The lens hood can't protrude too far else it will vignette the frame - and the vast majority of flare issues are caused when a bright light source is in the frame.

See what I'm gettin' at here?
 
at work so I haven't got the image with me.

The sun was directly overhead so the light obviously come in at a really shallow angle and bounced around between the filter and the lens. A hood would have stopped it I think.

I have a shot from the same series with the bride and groom standing in front of an arch and I have the sun coming over the top of it. Bit of lens flare which I expected due to having it in frame but the other one stumped me completely.

I didn't even see it like I did with some of the range rover shots, had to use my hand there to block the light coming in because I could see if through the viewfinder.
 
Myky D said:
Erm ... thanks. Yes - I'll be getting a decent polarizing filter. However, a lens hood is about £20 and I ain't made of cash. Wondered if anyone had some shots I could look at before I decide so that I can compare and contrast?
Click to expand...

its £20 for a genuine one but have you thought about a third party hood from ebay thats only something like £2.50
 
Well, kids, I'm set. I'm sorry, Yardbent - I didn't see your ad until afterwards. Having been through all the cr@p with CC, I'm pretty keen on being able to touch stuff before I buy it at the moment. It took me ages to internet shop because of the fear of exactly that happening, and it's set me back a decade. Not to say I don't trust you or this forum, but I specifically did want to be able to play before paying.

Aaaaanyway - I'm all set now, with a Hoya (natch) and my 50mm.

I must say - I've only had the kit (18-55mm) lens before, and it's a noteworthily different discipline using a prime.

But golly gosh and crikey it's fast! I've just been taking pictures of a pen top at my desk at work - which is the actul Dilbert zone you've read about - and with the polarizing filter on, and only needed to go down to 1/125th at ISO 400. Jusdas Priest only knows what it's going to be like when I get out into the garden for macro work!

Aaaand (not anything you didn't know, but I didn't quite realise) - it's range is f1.8-22! That's a pretty substantial range, methinks.

Looking forward to having lots and lots of fun with it, and, of course, doing the job I bought it for!
 
It really comes into its own when you can take sharp photos in a room lit only by lamps, without necessarily needing to max out your ISO.

IMG_8070.jpg


The photo would have been better with a 1.4, as it is a tad underexposed, mind.
 
Myky D said:
Well, kids, I'm set. I'm sorry, Yardbent - I didn't see your ad until afterwards. Having been through all the cr@p with CC, I'm pretty keen on being able to touch stuff before I buy it at the moment. It took me ages to internet shop because of the fear of exactly that happening, and it's set me back a decade. Not to say I don't trust you or this forum, but I specifically did want to be able to play before paying.

Aaaaanyway - I'm all set now, with a Hoya (natch) and my 50mm.

I must say - I've only had the kit (18-55mm) lens before, and it's a noteworthily different discipline using a prime.

But golly gosh and crikey it's fast! I've just been taking pictures of a pen top at my desk at work - which is the actul Dilbert zone you've read about - and with the polarizing filter on, and only needed to go down to 1/125th at ISO 400. Jusdas Priest only knows what it's going to be like when I get out into the garden for macro work!

Aaaand (not anything you didn't know, but I didn't quite realise) - it's range is f1.8-22! That's a pretty substantial range, methinks.

Looking forward to having lots and lots of fun with it, and, of course, doing the job I bought it for!
Click to expand...

You will start hitting diffraction problems at around F8-F11
 
trencheel303 said:
What caused the flare - are you able to show us the photo?? I'd bet my next wagepacket that a hood wouldn't have saved it.

For protection, yes, hoods are great, but as for reducing flare, I don't see the logic, and I've never seen any proof that they actually do. The lens hood can't protrude too far else it will vignette the frame - and the vast majority of flare issues are caused when a bright light source is in the frame.

See what I'm gettin' at here?
Click to expand...

Here:

VS_wedding61.jpg


The sun was pretty much directly overhead.

EDIT: And yes, that is a tractor at a wedding. Farmers :)
 
Some lenses are more prone to flair than others, prime lenses are quite resistant, while complex zoom lenses with lots of elements less so.


I always used a hood with my Tamron 17-50, half to combat flare and half to protect the front element. If you go to photozone.de, they have a lot of lenses and you can see how susceptible your lens is.
 
I would never dream of using a lens without a hood. Some of my lenses have the hood taped on!
 
Why would you not use a lens hood?
 
Just one comment... the Canon *nasty fifty* won't take a filter and the (official) hood at the same time.

Given the choice of hood vs filter, I went hood for everything except when I needed the filter for proper light adjusting properties - ie cpl.

I still don't get why people rave about those lenses anyway, horrid nasty things!
 
While I will own that peeing on people's cornflakes can be fun, it does tend to make one look like a bitter old queen.

Cheer up - it's nearly Christmas.
 
Nothing bitter, just my opinion that the cheapest lens that will fit a Canon SLR reflects its price tag. It amusing in the same way as a 99p toy from Woolworths is... fleetingly...
 
desantnik said:
Nothing bitter, just my opinion that the cheapest lens that will fit a Canon SLR reflects its price tag. It amusing in the same way as a 99p toy from Woolworths is... fleetingly...
Click to expand...

And your purpose in telling me all this is ... what? To illustrate that your lenses are so much better? That your knowledge and experience of lenses and photography broader? That your talent and instinct more honed?

Or simply to make me feel like I've wasted my money?

I have a job to do in low-light conditions that I need quick glass for. There is no problem.
 
You pushed me to clarify on the point...
 
Just to disagree, the Canon nifty fifty DOES let you have the hood and a filter on. I've got a B&W 10 stop screwed onto mine with the hood on as we type.
 
desantnik said:
I still don't get why people rave about those lenses anyway, horrid nasty things!
Click to expand...

Because

- it's cheap. I paid about £70 new for mine in 2004.
- it's f/1.8. Nothing else anywhere near that price bracket will do this.
- it's a hell of a lot sharper than the 18-55 kit lens that came with the 300D
- it's small (unobtrusive, non-threatening and light)

I had a lot of fun with mine

479164913_b1de1905ac.jpg


976795079_6a54b92882.jpg


1072473150_fc8baccaa0.jpg
 
desantnik said:
Just one comment... the Canon *nasty fifty* won't take a filter and the (official) hood at the same time.

Given the choice of hood vs filter, I went hood for everything except when I needed the filter for proper light adjusting properties - ie cpl.

I still don't get why people rave about those lenses anyway, horrid nasty things!
Click to expand...

LOL at 'nasty fifty' - I love it.

However, the lens is at a price point, craply built but exceptionally sharp. 'Horrid nasty' is a bit much, but I think it's a bit rubbish how they downgraded considerably from the mark I, i.e., removed the metal mount, focus window and half decent focus ring and replaced it all with a sh%'ite plastic barrel :bang: :cuckoo:

It's good marketing that works though; I bought the 'nasty fifty' not too long ago and now want to upgrade to the 1.4 - that's quite a bit of money Canon has had out of me for what is a very 'cheap' lens... buggers...
 
Lens hoods are well worth it, purely from a protection point of view. I always reverse mine when the camera's not in use in order to lend a bit more protection to the lens; in one such scenario a reversed lens hood saved the day when I dropped one of my lenses - not a scratch on it thanks to the hood absorbing the impact!
 
Trixster said:
Lens hoods are well worth it, purely from a protection point of view. I always reverse mine when the camera's not in use in order to lend a bit more protection to the lens; in one such scenario a reversed lens hood saved the day when I dropped one of my lenses - not a scratch on it thanks to the hood absorbing the impact!
Click to expand...

Agreed. But until the day it actually makes a different to the *image quality* I will always assert that their main purpose is simply protection.
 
trencheel303 said:
Agreed. But until the day it actually makes a different to the *image quality* I will always assert that their main purpose is simply protection.
Click to expand...


Well without a hood, if an image suffers from flare or glare then surely that affects image quality?
 
Yeah but that's what I meant, I've never found the hood to prevent that. Took it off put it on changed places did the hokey kokey and no difference. If there was flare there was flare, regardless of hood on or off.

I'm not the kind of person to just believe that a hood will fix the problem because A B and C people say so. until it *actually* makes a difference to me when I'm out in the field, I'll remain skeptical.

However, given the conditions that I am usually shooting in, hood goes on for protection.
 
A hood will help prevent against flare, but it's no means definitive. It all depends on the angle of the light source so simple adding and removing the hood is unlikely to make a difference. Try angling the lens direction up/down, left/right and you will notice a difference from using a hood. Failing that just use your arm or hand to block it if the hood isn't big enough for the focal length used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top