Easy question hopefully does anyone not use the lens hood when light is low

[spudhead]

So I think this is a straight forward question but they rarely are, so generally by which I mean 99% of the time I use the lens hood as intended on the end of the lens even in low light, so what do you do and reasoning please

 

[Jeff A]

I'm a half and half guy. I don't really care much for them other than bright sunlight situations but they do offer some strike protection for some expensive glass.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I never use the lens hood. I think they look crap and I believe that they are only useful as a protector rather than an image enhancer.

I'm very careful with my gear so I don't think I need it. All my lens hoods are left in their original boxes from day one.

 

[mapleleaf56]

I rarely use them..

 

[Brownie]

Almost always, except for low light and indoors, and sometimes even then if it's more convenient to mount it than put it back in the bag. They not only protect the end of your lens, but they improve your view in bright light, cut glare, and improve color and contrast.

There is one big exception. Watch this video (you don't have to watch the video he references). This is worth a 4-1/2 minute watch. Because of this I haven't been using a hood to shoot birds this season. Plus, the lights been so bad, no need.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I always use the lens hood because I’d rather bang the lens hood on something than bang the end of the lens. Replacing a lens hood is a lot cheaper than repairing a lens

Don’t know why I’d fo it differently in low light. After all, it doesn’t block any desirable light, just flare inducing nasties.

 

[pointreyes]

Always on. Normally it is a crowded event and I have had people banging into my gear.

 

[Clix Pix]

I always use the lens hood. Better protection against flare and glare and also in case I bump against something or someone bumps into me.

 

[spudhead]

Almost always, except for low light and indoors, and sometimes even then if it's more convenient to mount it than put it back in the bag. They not only protect the end of your lens, but they improve your view in bright light, cut glare, and improve color and contrast.

There is one big exception. Watch this video (you don't have to watch the video he references). This is worth a 4-1/2 minute watch. Because of this I haven't been using a hood to shoot birds this season. Plus, the lights been so bad, no need.

I might test this myself although I have seen this before and I am not sure what to make of it

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Always in use. The link Tim posted is interesting, but I don't think it's relevant in the UK, as we don't have the extremes of temperature.

 

[Tim Mayo]

It's pretty much always on. I took a tumble with my 100-400 a couple of years back and the lens hood bore the brunt of the fall. It was definitely cheaper to replace the hood than the lens. I still have a scar on my head to remind me!

 

[Brownie]

I might test this myself although I have seen this before and I am not sure what to make of it

I think it'd really only apply in cold weather with a warm lens. Seems to me once the lens acclimates it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Unframed Dave]

On, always. Protection mainly.

Dave

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Always use it both for lens protection and avoid stray light/glare impingement......as an Eastern hemisphere shooter in the main, with strong sunlight most days ,it is imperative to use the hood, I wouldn't't disagree however in the uk it is not so critical but if its the difference with it off of losing even
1 high quality keeper i prefer to use the hood Irrespective of where I am ......

 

[spudhead]

I am a bit suprised that so many people see the lens hood as protection for the end element of the lens, and not as a purpose made part of the to lens which every lens manufacturer has designed related to the lens focal length or focal range, to reduce glare etc.

 

[Brownie]

I am a bit suprised that so many people see the lens hood as protection for the end element of the lens, and not as a purpose made part of the to lens which every lens manufacturer has designed related to the lens focal length or focal range, to reduce glare etc.

Many people use it as such. I never saw the beauty of putting a $60 UV filter in front of a $2000 lens to protect it. Why would you risk degrading the image when the hood does it so well?

 

[AlphaWorld]

I am a bit suprised that so many people see the lens hood as protection for the end element of the lens, and not as a purpose made part of the to lens which every lens manufacturer has designed related to the lens focal length or focal range, to reduce glare etc.

Flare is an issue when shooting with the sun near the field of view. Possible impact damage is an issue pretty much all the time. Putting the hood on protects from both, but the impact issue is why we put it on when shooting inside, at night, under clouds...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I think the lens hood was something that may have been needed in the old days but are still included today because 1. External protection, 2. It gives people the feeling of getting something for their money, 3. Many will kick and scream if it isn't included, 4. It would obviously still make some sort of minute difference in some circumstances even with the advancements in coatings and element design.

I wish it was an option because if it meant the lens was $50 less if the hood wasn't included then it would mean that I get a free lunch that day.

When I had my A6400 I had Tamron 11-20mm and 17-70mm, Sigma 16mm and 30mm etc. At that point I was thinking those lenses were big so I really wanted to know the necessity of a hood as it made the overall footprint much smaller without it. So I done all different kinds of test shots into sun, on different angles to light etc with and without the hood on to compare, and apart from an odd shot which the difference wasn't really an advantage or a disadvantage just slightly different, I couldn't see any difference whatsoever.

I do agree that 1 in 100 shots might benefit from the hood, but I also see the other side of it that if I'm looking at the crappy hood on my camera and getting annoyed by it, then that will impact my concentration for the other 99 photos anyway.

I also agree with the comment about the stupid UV filter that people put on their lenses. Yes putting a foreign piece of glass in front of a series of glass which has all been tuned to work in beautiful harmony, then trying to convince me that your image hasn't been affected in a negative way in any way at all is pretty amusing and ignorant I think.

 

[Brownie]

I think the lens hood was something that may have been needed in the old days but are still included today because 1. External protection, 2. It gives people the feeling of getting something for their money, 3. Many will kick and scream if it isn't included, 4. It would obviously still make some sort of minute difference in some circumstances even with the advancements in coatings and element design.

I wish it was an option because if it meant the lens was $50 less if the hood wasn't included then it would mean that I get a free lunch that day.

When I had my A6400 I had Tamron 11-20mm and 17-70mm, Sigma 16mm and 30mm etc. At that point I was thinking those lenses were big so I really wanted to know the necessity of a hood as it made the overall footprint much smaller without it. I done all different kinds of shots into sun, on different angles to light etc with and without the hood on, and apart from an odd shot I couldn't see any difference whatsoever.

I do agree that 1 in 100 shots might benefit from the hood, but I also see the other side of it that if I'm looking at the crappy hood on my camera and getting annoyed by it, then that will impact my concentration for the other 99 photos anyway.

I also agree with the comment about the stupid UV filter that people put on their lenses. Yes putting a foreign piece of glass in front of a series of glass which has all been tuned to work in beautiful harmony, then trying to convince me that your image hasn't been affected in a negative way in any way at all is pretty amusing and ignorant I think.

Olympus pro lenses come without the hood, so there ya' go! A few thousand dollars to swap systems and you'll be in hoodless heaven!

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

One thing that could be a consideration too, is that having the hood on should, in theory, reduce the chances of sunlight reflecting back from the lens and disturbing wildlife, especially if the wildlife is to the left or right of you.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

One thing that could be a consideration too, is that having the hood on should, in theory, reduce the chances of sunlight reflecting back from the lens and disturbing wildlife, especially if the wildlife is to the left or right of you.

**** the wildlife, the big dog is in town..!

 

[AlphaWorld]

I think the lens hood was something that may have been needed in the old days but are still included today because 1. External protection, 2. It gives people the feeling of getting something for their money, 3. Many will kick and scream if it isn't included, 4. It would obviously still make some sort of minute difference in some circumstances even with the advancements in coatings and element design.

I wish it was an option because if it meant the lens was $50 less if the hood wasn't included then it would mean that I get a free lunch that day.

When I had my A6400 I had Tamron 11-20mm and 17-70mm, Sigma 16mm and 30mm etc. At that point I was thinking those lenses were big so I really wanted to know the necessity of a hood as it made the overall footprint much smaller without it. So I done all different kinds of test shots into sun, on different angles to light etc with and without the hood on to compare, and apart from an odd shot which the difference wasn't really an advantage or a disadvantage just slightly different, I couldn't see any difference whatsoever.

I do agree that 1 in 100 shots might benefit from the hood, but I also see the other side of it that if I'm looking at the crappy hood on my camera and getting annoyed by it, then that will impact my concentration for the other 99 photos anyway.

I also agree with the comment about the stupid UV filter that people put on their lenses. Yes putting a foreign piece of glass in front of a series of glass which has all been tuned to work in beautiful harmony, then trying to convince me that your image hasn't been affected in a negative way in any way at all is pretty amusing and ignorant I think.

If you pick the right retailer I'm pretty sure you can buy your lenses without the hoods, and I think they'd happily provide that service for the $50 surcharge you're willing to pay. Oh, you expect to get a discount for them removing the hood? Good luck with that :-D

There were a lot of Canon lenses (cheaper ones) which shipped without hoods. I don't know if any of the RF lenses ship without (at the prices of most of them, I doubt it.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Was just trying to use that ideology of a way to explain how little the lens hood means to me.

At the end of the day I'd really actually rather have the lens hood with it. It would obviously be better for resale as many people do have a different view than I do.

All I can say is that every one of the people who regularly post on this forum consistently deliver lovely images, so it's pretty clear that whatever they do in regards to their camera setup is not a problem at all and it works just fine for them.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Was just trying to use that ideology of a way to explain how little the lens hood means to me.

At the end of the day I'd really actually rather have the lens hood with it. It would obviously be better for resale as many people do have a different view than I do.

All I can say is that every one of the people who regularly post on this forum consistently deliver lovely images, so it's pretty clear that whatever they do in regards to their camera setup is not a problem at all and it works just fine for them.

Please forgive the facetiousness, I was in a grumpy mood when I replied.

Sometimes people want to make things optional without considering that it would actually increase the price. The hood costs the manufacturer maybe a few dollars (for a basic plastic one piece hood), so they throw it into the package; taking it out would not drop the price of the lens by much at all; but making it a separately purchased part would definitely cost quite a bit ($50, maybe $90, …) because it would need packaging, to be tracked as a stock item, … So it would save next to nothing, but cost a heap - let’s not go that way!

Does that make sense?

 

[Landshark99]

I am in the always lens hood use type of shooter, for light flare and shock absorption, and to add even more old school thought all my lenses also have a high quality clear filter on them. Learned from experience a damaged lens is expensive to repair or replace. There are more than a few times that a lens hood has saved a lens from damage. I just got back from Death Valley with rain, wind, sand and mud, no matter how careful one is, the filter was splattered with crud, Far easier to clean and replace the clear filter than the front element and if there are those times where one wants the ultimate light transmission you can always take the filter off. Constant cleaning of the front element will far more degrade the front optic than one thinks.