Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: Hood or no hood?
Use a hood all the time on my lenses 90 61.64%
Never use a hood (why?) 11 7.53%
Some yes and some not (which ones?) 43 29.45%
I'm in a gang, I'm a hoodlum not a hood 2 1.37%
Voters: 146. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 02-21-2020   #41
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,208
I lost my hood when I was a baby, so I donít see the benefits of a hood. Flare happens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #42
ruby.monkey
Registered User
 
ruby.monkey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Age: 49
Posts: 4,624
All my lenses have an unholy attraction for concrete posts and sharp corners. Lens hoods make an excellent bumper.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #43
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 10,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
I lost my hood when I was a baby, so I donít see the benefits of a hood. Flare happens.
You must be the guy who voted that you were hoodlum. Sweet.
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #44
steveyork
Registered User
 
steveyork is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sunny South Florida
Posts: 777
Never use a hood unless it's integrated. They're too fiddle. Rarely do I care about flare. I just do this for fun. Flare too can be interesting, or not. Most of my lenses are multicoated anyway.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #45
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshapero View Post
You must be the guy who voted that you were hoodlum. Sweet.
Wasnít me!

And like Steve, Iím not a professional, so okay with flare and even appreciate sometimes. The only downside of a rangefinder is you donít get a preview of it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #46
jjcha
Registered User
 
jjcha is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Maslak View Post
I've always used hoods as a matter of routine, for both stay light and protection, except now with the little Fuji 27mm on an XE-2s. There just wasn't one until "Squarehood" in Sweden came up with a neat looking, albeit expensive outside the AF element mounted little affair that looks very attractive. I know they have had one for the X100 series for a while. Does anyone have experience with these? I'm tempted, but 60 euros +++ makes me hesitate.
I didn't realize they made a hood for the 27mm, thanks for bringing that up.

I have the one for my X100F and it's great, except that the mechanism for attaching the hood to the lens is in two pieces. One is a filter-like ring that you screw on to the filter threads, that's fine. Then you attach the actual hood to that ring, and screw in two tiny screws on the sides of the hood.

See the image here -- I'm referring to the two tiny screws on the bottom of this image and the tiny screw holes you can see on the actual sides of the hood on the lower right of the image.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/00...g?v=1580129480

Those tiny screws are the only thing holding the actual hood onto the filter-like ring to the left. If you're not careful, you can either (1) screw in too tight and strip the threads or (2) screw in too loose and allow the hood to rotate/slip off. I've done both and the former sucks.

But I think if you're careful it's great. Because of this tiny screw mechanism taking the hood on and off takes time and care with a little screwdriver, which is fine and dandy the first time you do it, but gets annoying if, for example, you want to take the hood off every time before you pack the camera/lens away in a bag.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #47
Greg Maslak
Registered User
 
Greg Maslak's Avatar
 
Greg Maslak is offline
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: The Kootenay's, BC, Canada
Posts: 202
Thank you, ruby.monkey and jjcha for your quick reviews of the Squarehood for Fuji. It does indeed sound a bit fussy and not likely a big improvement over going without.

That's one of the reasons I like this forum so much. You can count on knowledgable answers to almost any query. I really appreciate that. Thanks again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #48
Yokosuka_Mike
The Beat Goes On
 
Yokosuka_Mike's Avatar
 
Yokosuka_Mike is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Age: 64
Posts: 3,020
I always use a lens hood for one simple reason, I think they look cool. Metal hoods are the best, vented is all the better; square is sublime.

The smallest lens hood Iíve ever used was the one that came with the Fujifilm Klasse. If it fell off it might take one a day or two to notice it was gone.

The one lens hood I didnít care for was on the Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm F1.4. It was just too damn big; about the same size as the lens itself. I was tempted to cut about ĺ of an inch off the front.

All the best,
Mike
__________________
My poems are mere words written in the sand with a piece of driftwood and a carefree hand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #49
Steve Bellayr
Registered User
 
Steve Bellayr's Avatar
 
Steve Bellayr is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,953
Yes, on all my lenses except a Nikkor 50mm f3.5 (LTM) only because I have no idea of the hood that would fit this lens. So, if anyone can advise I would appreciate it so that all my lenses have hoods.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #50
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,342
My first two lenses had the hood reversed to put on the cap. Great Leitz design. My second most recent lens, the Summaron-M, has a glorious hood, very valuable and bulky and with the deep set front element, generally unnecessary so I don’t use it. My most recent lens is the 35 Summilux with a series VII filter in the hood. For light sources in frame there is no easier way to remove the filter than just removing the hood. Same with the Fuji X100. Otherwise I have hoods and filters on nearly all lenses every time.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #51
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,342
An old Rolleiflex (mine an Automat with 75 Xenar) absolutely needs the hood.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #52
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,492
I never use a hood, I just avoid aiming at the sun.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2020   #53
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 67
Posts: 1,250
Hoods on everything just like my cars all have bumpers. Can't hurt and might help.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #54
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,033
I use hoods on ALL my lenese ALL the time.
Why wouldn't I ?!
I use multiple lenses and when changing lenses I put them down on a table front element down or I put them in my bag. The hoods keeps the front element from touching the below surface. I the rare case I bump into anything the hood will hopefully give some protection.

People are arguing endlessly about properties and resolution of lenses and the dynamic range of sensors and they don't care to use the cheapest and most useful tool to maximize inherent contrast at time of exposure? Loss of image quality happens way before visible flare. If you have a chance to max out IQ then do it. I always have to hold back not to smack people sporting a huge DSLR and an even bigger autofocus zoom lens in front of it and they carry the hood in reverse attached to the lens. How lazy and stupid can you be?!

Rant over
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #55
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post

People are arguing endlessly about properties and resolution of lenses and the dynamic range of sensors and they don't care to use the cheapest and most useful tool to maximize inherent contrast at time of exposure? Loss of image quality happens way before visible flare. If you have a chance to max out IQ then do it. I always have to hold back not to smack people sporting a huge DSLR and an even bigger autofocus zoom lens in front of it and they carry the hood in reverse attached to the lens. How lazy and stupid can you be?!

Rant over
Exactly! I know the feeling, wanting to smack the DSLR users... sometimes they even block their fingers from the zoom ring!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #56
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
I use hoods on ALL my lenese ALL the time.
Why wouldn't I ?!
Because hoods make lenses even bigger, they are not bumpers because chances are that the obstacle wound't have hit your lens without the large hood, they make changing filters cumbersome, they are not needed in most situations unless you shoot against the light, and if you do, flares can be thing of beauty.

I recently met a Magnum photographer who had two cameras around his neck that were severely banged up, had lost all their paint, he used no hood, not even a protective filter ... and that guy's photos are amazing and have been published all over the world. I think that makes my point.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #57
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is online now
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 4,157
Back in 2004 when my dual range Summicron was dropped on a marble floor in Iraq, the only reason the lens survived is because of the Leica hood that was on it. The floor was ok too.
Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #58
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,241
i hate petal hoods and use them as little as possible...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #59
James24
Registered User
 
James24's Avatar
 
James24 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 257
I keep buying hoods and I keep not using them. Hoods make lenses bigger, and uglier, and get in the way. As has previously been said, the best hoods are fixed to the lens ...50mm Summilux ASPH and Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS come immediately to mind. You can't leave home without them, and they're easy to use and tuck away when not in use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #60
ruby.monkey
Registered User
 
ruby.monkey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Age: 49
Posts: 4,624
I've found such integral hoods to be close to useless unless they have a way to be locked out when extended.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #61
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
I think well-designed hoods look great (especially rectangular ones) and improve handling (no fear of fingers on front element, no caps needed), beside all the other advantages... I agree that petal hoods look ugly though and I'm also not at all fond of the dish-like wide angle SLR lens hoods that look huge and intimidating from the front. I'll still use them all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #62
jrose125
Registered User
 
jrose125's Avatar
 
jrose125 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 150
Chalk it up to paranoia, but every lens I own gets a UV filter and a lens hood if they are reasonably affordable.
__________________
Instagram- jakerosephoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #63
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
I'm feeling argumentative, please don't feel singled out, you''re not the only one who has voice these ideas...
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
Because hoods make lenses even bigger, they are not bumpers because chances are that the obstacle wound't have hit your lens without the large hood, they make changing filters cumbersome, they are not needed in most situations unless you shoot against the light, and if you do, flares can be thing of beauty.
Flare firstly means reduced contrast. Are you sure you always want that? Because there are ways to achieve it all the time! Underexpose and underdevelop your film, voila!
Ghosts OTOH you mostly get from a light source in the frame, which brings me to...
Nah, shooting against the light is in fact one of the few situations where a hood is useless - if the light source is in the frame, often also when it's very near the frame. No hood can block light from inside the picture area without blocking the picture, right? While keeping diffuse light away also helps, a hood makes the biggest difference when it can keep direct light from hitting your front element, and that can happen at near half of all possible angles when you're in direct sunlight (and the hood will help except in those where the sun is in the frame). So - in case that by "against the light" you didn't mean only when the light source is in the frame - are you going to avoid all those angles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
I recently met a Magnum photographer who had two cameras around his neck that were severely banged up, had lost all their paint, he used no hood, not even a protective filter ... and that guy's photos are amazing and have been published all over the world. I think that makes my point.
That makes your point? So your point was that a phantastic photographer can make amazing photos even with less-than-optimal-for-image-quality equipment? Congrats, you blew everyone's minds
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2020   #64
Yokosuka_Mike
The Beat Goes On
 
Yokosuka_Mike's Avatar
 
Yokosuka_Mike is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Age: 64
Posts: 3,020
Smile

The hood - It seems to be as much a personal preference as it is a matter of being beneficial (or not) toward the creation of images. Also the belief that a hood makes a damn fine protective device against dings and dangs and things that go bump in the dark. Itís all debatable, yes, no, maybe so!

Next will be the age old question of whether or not to use a lens protector or UV filter; does it help, hurt or neither?. Last but not least is the front lens cap; is it even worth the effort? Camera bags? Camera straps? Film vs digital! Phone vs CameraÖ

Thank goodness we have a forum where itís fun to discuss these important issues.

All the best,
Mike
__________________
My poems are mere words written in the sand with a piece of driftwood and a carefree hand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #65
eli griggs
Registered User
 
eli griggs's Avatar
 
eli griggs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 543
I generally always use a hood, filter and lens cap, when a lens is on a camera, in my bag.

This includes my 500cm, Canon F1's, Fed 3B, and any other cameras capable of taking these.

Hoods, filters and caps are the cheapest insurgence, you can have against a random knock into a doorway, a dropped bag, or other misadventure.

I keep the hood on while shooting and, if no needed, remove filters, but I very often keep a filter on between shots, if more than about five minutes, or I must step away from my tripod, outdoors.

Buy good filters, and use them with B&W film. Include ND filters and Polarizers in your kit and for colour work, and you'll no mind the extra 2 seconds of fuss, the first time your camera hits the floor, lens first and does no need to be repaired or replace.
r
IMO.
__________________
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert Heinlein
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy;...the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...." Also Robert Heinlein
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #66
Bike Tourist
Registered User
 
Bike Tourist's Avatar
 
Bike Tourist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central California
Age: 84
Posts: 1,255
I always use a lens shade, aka hood. Never even gave it a thought. I do not use "protective" filters since I don't want to protect the lens from its best performance. Hence, a little shielding from the sun and a little protection from mechanical damage makes sense to me.
__________________
Dick Thornton

Stock Portfolio:
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/biketourist
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #67
eli griggs
Registered User
 
eli griggs's Avatar
 
eli griggs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 543
[quote=Yokosuka_Mike;2943837]The hood - It seems to be as much a personal preference as it is a matter of being beneficial (or not) toward the creation of images. Also the belief that a hood makes a damn fine protective device against dings and dangs and things that go bump in the dark. Itís all debatable, yes, no, maybe so!"

I can no agree with looking at this as a personal choice that is debatable, but more of a choice about making the best images possible.

Professionals go to a lot of trouble to set up images, product or people, etc, and part of building a 'set' for photography, includes shielding the camera lens from glare, lights or other unwanted lighting effects.

Whether indoor or out doors, it ALL matters when it comes to getting the shot(s), with a single hood or a stand or two, with black cards, or simply because the experienced ad director and client are on the set and want to see all the tools, trick and 'secrets' of a professional photographer in play, so they feel better about the expense of a shoot, it does no matter.

No using a hood can be very expensive, taking more time, film, and patience, from your efforts and from the director and client, and any models whom are required, away from you, and don't think for a moment a single, badly executed shoot will no get talked about by the director, client, models and some assistants, including the clothing stylist, the make-up artist, the hair stylist, etc, the moment they walk out the door for a lunch or dinner break.

The choice to ignore shielding your lens from glare, etc, and the bad shoot that takes hours longer than was budgeted for, can kill your future business, no only from the ad director/client/modeling agency and models that want Professional Photographed done for their books, as well as more experience in front of a 'real' photographer, made wary by the word of mouth, how horribly you handled your job.

Now, I know lots of folks here do no want to be professionals, but I have a difficult time believing, that the majority of those that fall into that particular pigeon hole, do no want their photographs to be of professional quality.

I have never know of a photographer who looks at the work of other photographers, online, in books and the monthly mags, they spend a lot of money on, year after year, for the mediocre shots, no, the outstanding work of highly skilled Amateur and Professionals, all of whom learning from those that went before and those that work in the same areas they are interested, and are in competition for the same limited contracts, the freelance assignment of their dreams or even just the 'Photo of the Week, Month, Year, etc" of their favorite website, magazine, or local photo club.

Taken images are indeed easy to make on the run and gun chase for a decent photo, however, unless there is a really good reason that a hood, or filter interferes with a shot, no using them is just an excuse for the everyday slacker whom do no really Care how their images turn out, and gripe about how they never seem to get the outstanding photograph they went after. no matter how many rolls they buy and shoot.

IMO.
__________________
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert Heinlein
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy;...the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...." Also Robert Heinlein
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #68
Black
Photographer.
 
Black's Avatar
 
Black is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 594
What a load of pish.

There are companies who are now creating lenses that ACTIVELY PROMOTE FLARE!* Because when you set aside the homogenised, commercial requirements of sterile / sharp / overly processed images, there are still a percentage of clientele who embrace things like flare.

Man, people are gobbling up anamorphic lenses on MFT and even smartphones just for the signature flare. To suggest that all professionals subscribe to this limited, generic thinking is ignorant.

JJ Abrams sends his regards.

* And so do Sigma https://www.sigma-global.com/en/cine...classic-prime/ 🙄
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #69
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,591
As for the hood protecting the lens, I had a nice 70-200/2.8L Canon end up with a loose front barrel section due to bumping the hood against something. If the hood hadn't been on the lens, it wouldn't have been hanging out far enough to get whacked.

As I said previously, flare is not a major issue for me. I will use hoods to keep rain off the front glass as a rule. Otherwise it depends on how the spirit moves me as to whether or not I use the hood.

Now I do use clear filters on all my lenses. I've seen the value of these devices. In my 40-something years of taking pictures I've scratched, cracked or broken quite a few filters but I've never damaged a lenses front element.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #70
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black View Post
What a load of pish.

There are companies who are now creating lenses that ACTIVELY PROMOTE FLARE!* Because when you set aside the homogenised, commercial requirements of sterile / sharp / overly processed images, there are still a percentage of clientele who embrace things like flare.

Man, people are gobbling up anamorphic lenses on MFT and even smartphones just for the signature flare. To suggest that all professionals subscribe to this limited, generic thinking is ignorant.

JJ Abrams sends his regards.

* And so do Sigma https://www.sigma-global.com/en/cine...classic-prime/ ��
I'm pretty sure cinematographers who buy or rent these lenses use them very deliberately when they want these flares and ghosts and use other lenses, and fancy compendium hoods and flags(!), when they don't. That's quite different from the stance of not ever using a hood because one doesn't like their looks or whatever.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #71
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,591
I always use a lens hood on my lenses. Why not?
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #72
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 182
I certainly use hood for lenses with focal lengths of 35mm and longer. I have a 28mm and a 25mm lens but they are not fitted with hoods. With 35mm and longer I can see that the hoods are effective and can judge pretty well when they are being effective. With my two shortest focal length lenses I could not convince myself that hoods would be particularly effective it's too difficult to judge with confidence. With these lenses I use other techniques e.g. my hand or stepping into the shade, that kind of thing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #73
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 69
Posts: 4,271
Use hoods with all my lenses .
I also use BW clear filters on all apart from the 400/4 which has internal filters.
I especially make sure that there is always a hood on the 400 ….. massive front element and no other means of protection .

The 28 Summicron is currently hoodless however because the crummy plastic one cracked.
I`m hoping that I can find a metal replacement .
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #74
eli griggs
Registered User
 
eli griggs's Avatar
 
eli griggs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 543
"Man, people are gobbling up anamorphic lenses on MFT and even smartphones just for the signature flare. To suggest that all professionals subscribe to this limited, generic thinking is ignorant."

What you are describing is a Trend or Fad, no solid photography with the purpose to produce the best photograph in your ability to make one, using Best Practices, but to allow chance shots to influence the photograph because of built in or applied. elements of chance.

Just as in/from, the 1960's painters and other artists used whatever grounds, paints or substance to produce "works of art," with many works failing in just a few years or decades, does no mean it is anything more than a Fad, Phase, or anti-art attempt at a statement.

Call it a movement if you must, but to those of us that want to make a quality photograph, most especially in analog equipment, and darkroom prints, no software, Best Practices are nothing short of what many folks call, 'The Basics'.

If you want to make a shot with special lighting effects, use software and save yourself the expense of buying deliberately 'bad' lenses.

You'll find you have a higher rate of success and more time to shoot what you desire.

Tricks, as it were, are still for for kids.

IMO,
__________________
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert Heinlein
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy;...the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...." Also Robert Heinlein
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #75
rumbliegeos
Registered User
 
rumbliegeos's Avatar
 
rumbliegeos is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 283
I virtually always use a MC UV filter, or correction filter, and a hood on all of my lenses. The only exception to this was when I carried a Barnack Leica with a collapsible lens and wanted to keep down the thickness of the camera to make it as compact as possible.
__________________
Gerry
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #76
Shac
Registered User
 
Shac is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: White Rock, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,151
Just curious - unless your lens has a deeply recessed front element - what would the reason be for not using a hood? (honest query)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #77
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,591
I use a lens hood so that I do not need to use any filters.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #78
PŠl_K
Cameras. I has it.
 
PŠl_K's Avatar
 
PŠl_K is offline
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Gig Harbor
Posts: 323
It's a personal choice. I won't criticize anyone for not using a hood or filter.

I'm grateful that some Leica and Nikon lenses have built-in retractable lens hoods (e.g. some old pre-AI teles, the newer 135/2 AF-D DC). Extend the hood when using the lens, retract it when storing in the bag. Simple.

Some lenses have front elements with very little recess (Pentax 35mm f/2.4 DA, for example. It definitely would be affected by extraneous light from the side. It seemed too vulnerable. Bought one last week and immediately bought a metal hood for it.
__________________
"Great photography is about the visual effect upon the viewer, not sharpness." - Stephen Gandy, Cameraquest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #79
shimokita
白黒
 
shimokita's Avatar
 
shimokita is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Japan, Tokyo
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shac View Post
Just curious - unless your lens has a deeply recessed front element - what would the reason be for not using a hood? (honest query)
With film, my 50mm f/1.4 has a build-in hood and the hood for the 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit is small enough... but other wise I don't use a hood. It just something extra to fiddle with when taking personal shots. It adds to the size of the kit (e.g. Nikon F3P), particularly in winter where the camera stays inside the jacket when not being used... much of my photography is early morning or later in the day and slow enough set-up time that I can choose my composition...

Often I use Lee Seven5 filters (ND Grads) with tripod work and if necessary I can use my hat or hand to shield the lens... I have hoods for all my lenses, they just don't bring me anything that justifies their use for personal work.

For some reason, with digital (dSLR not mirrorless) I often use a hood... PL filters and bayonet hoods don't always seem to work well together (e.g. EF 70-200 f/4L with ET-74)...

Casey
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2020   #80
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 182
As has been said, it is ultimately a matter of what you are trying to achieve. When shooting 'contre-jour' I don't like stray light getting into the lens and ending up on the negative either as a loss of contrast or 'aperture shaped' patches of light. I use hoods to prevent this happening. I can judge when a hood is being effective for my lenses with focal lengths of 35mm or longer. I have found it best to shade my 28mm and 25mm lenses in other ways e.g. with my hand or by shooting from a shady spot. If shooting with the light behind you its much less problematical.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:52.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.