To lens hood or not to lens hood, that is the question?

[Chris 3754]

I use a lens hood when shooting ice hockey mostly because I have found in the excitement of moving quickly I regularly make contact with the 70-200 against the glass. I also use them when shooting outdoor sports or wildlife from a somewhat stationary position. Otherwise when hiking or street photography, if I find glare I just use my hand as a block. They just seem to be more of a pain when handling lenses and packing them into my small backpack. Granted I don’t shoot video, so that may be different. What do you all think, to me they don’t seem to provide that much value? Am I wrong about this?

 

[iamdlewis]

I too basically use the hood as protection and not for blocking light.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I never go out without a hood on. I've had too many near misses. I swiped the corner of a building the other day when I underestimated the over hang of my my a1 plus 600.

I also dropped the pair of them when I hadn't properly attached the gimbrel. Luckily, it was only from a hide shelf.

 

[sswildlife]

I always use a lens hood for wildlife photography. It's nice to prop the camera on, provides protection, and in my opinion cuts glare + improves contrast.

 

[rcreamer]

I always use mine because:
• Light from the side, even though it won't be in the picture, can still scatter onto the sensor causing some loss of contrast. I think.
• In direct sunlight to prevent lens flares.
• In my camera bag so jostling won't inadvertently knock off the lens caps. (But not my long lenses.)

Sometimes I take it off to more easily adjust the rotation angle of a CPL but put it back on before clicking. Some of my lens hoods have a little sliding door for adjusting a CPL but this is awkward at best.

 

[THXGEEK]

Always on. If not for protection, then for glare. I'm a 'two-handed' photographer and find that I can rarely spare my left hand for glare-blocking duty.

 

[Chris 3754]

Thank you all. It seems that the majority use the hood. I see some situations where I will still go commando , but will try to use it more. Also going to try some testing for a comparison. Thanks again, this is such a great forum!

 

[THXGEEK]

I see some situations where I will still go commando ...

Geez, thanks ALOT Chris. I damn near spilled my scotch laughing at this!!!

 

[Chris 3754]

Geez, thanks ALOT Chris. I damn near spilled my scotch laughing at this!!!

LOL that would be alcohol abuse.

 

[Richard A]

I generally do use a lens hood. They are not required in all situations though and can be a pain, depending on the lens, when using filters that require rotating.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I generally do use a lens hood. They are not required in all situations though and can be a pain, depending on the lens, when using filters that require rotating.

A lot of the longer G and GM lenses are coming with hood windows for rotating filters now. Used not to be common, but that has changed.

Addressing the main point of the thread, I put the hood on roughly 99.3% of the time (approximately).

Chris probably hasn’t come across the (now inactive, I think) members who used the soubriquet of “Deleted Member 5045”. Oh, gosh, the site replace H o o d l e s s C r u s a d e r with a deleted member tag.

 

[Unframed Dave]

A lot of the longer G and GM lenses are coming with hood windows for rotating filters now. Used not to be common, but that has changed.

Addressing the main point of the thread, I put the hood on roughly 99.3% of the time (approximately).

Chris probably hasn’t come across the (now inactive, I think) members who used the soubriquet of “Deleted Member 5045”. Oh, gosh, the site replace H o o d l e s s C r u s a d e r with a deleted member tag.

I'd forgotten about his username. An interesting chap.

 

[Chris 3754]

A lot of the longer G and GM lenses are coming with hood windows for rotating filters now. Used not to be common, but that has changed.

Addressing the main point of the thread, I put the hood on roughly 99.3% of the time (approximately).

Chris probably hasn’t come across the (now inactive, I think) members who used the soubriquet of “Deleted Member 5045”. Oh, gosh, the site replace H o o d l e s s C r u s a d e r with a deleted member tag.

Looks like I missed something interesting…

 

[spudhead]

Lens manufacturers don`t waste time and money making lens hoods for no reason, I have not read all the thread yet but for me I never take a shot without a lens hood fitted. Some of the reasons, one already mentioned to protect the end element, I recall an outing just after buying the 300 2.8 when it saved the lens from a serious amount of abrasive mud from landing on the end element after sliding down a river bank, although the lens body coat and flock internal coat of the hood was heavily splattered the element was fine. Another reason is it helps to stop the end element fogging up in cold weather in the UK, and it helps in really hot weather as well. In 40 some years of buying lenses I have never bought one that did not have a hood , although some of the APSC petal hoods can be annoying. As for Deleted Member 5045 , Clint he still hates lens hoods and is around on at least one other site, although he has mellowed somewhat at least in public chat!

 

[Chris 3754]

Lens manufacturers don`t waste time and money making lens hoods for no reason, I have not read all the thread yet but for me I never take a shot without a lens hood fitted. Some of the reasons, one already mentioned to protect the end element, I recall an outing just after buying the 300 2.8 when it saved the lens from a serious amount of abrasive mud from landing on the end element after sliding down a river bank, although the lens body coat and flock internal coat of the hood was heavily splattered the element was fine. Another reason is it helps to stop the end element fogging up in cold weather in the UK, and it helps in really hot weather as well. In 40 some years of buying lenses I have never bought one that did not have a hood , although some of the APSC petal hoods can be annoying. As for Deleted Member 5045 , Clint he still hates lens hoods and is around on at least one other site, although he has mellowed somewhat at least in public chat!

That’s a good point in that manufacturers would cut the cost if they were not needed.

 

[Tim Mayo]

I almost always use a hood. I took a tumble with my 100-400 a few years back and the hood and my head took the brunt of it. Luckily the hood saved the lens. That’s also when I found out how much Sony’s lens hoods cost! Still much cheaper than a new lens.

This video from Steve Parry provides a scenario when you might want to take the hood off to avoid killing your images. Basically when going from a warm to cold environment without giving your gear time to adjust to the temperature change.

 

[iamdlewis]

In 40 some years of buying lenses I have never bought one that did not have a hood

Sony's 50mm macro doesn't come with a hood, I actually did a triple check of the box to make sure I didn't miss it.

 

[spudhead]

Sony's 50mm macro doesn't come with a hood, I actually did a triple check of the box to make sure I didn't miss it.

Ok so it would be Pentax slr days since I had a 50 mm lens, so interesting