drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
A photographer I used to work for would say "a lens isn't complete without a hood". I use them most of the time, but I'm not catholic about it.
In certain light and with certain lenses I know it won't be an issue, so I might not bother- and as someone mentioned above, sometimes a little flare can be nice. Whatever.
In certain light and with certain lenses I know it won't be an issue, so I might not bother- and as someone mentioned above, sometimes a little flare can be nice. Whatever.
philipp.leser
Established
I use hoods for my SLR lenses which are big anyway, but only if they come with the lens.
For my RF gear I only have the included "hood" for the CV21, which I use. I use the Nokton 40mm without a hood and haven't had any problems so far. Because of that I'm reluctant to spend 70 Euros for a hood, which is already 1/4 of the price of the lens.
Regards,
Philipp
For my RF gear I only have the included "hood" for the CV21, which I use. I use the Nokton 40mm without a hood and haven't had any problems so far. Because of that I'm reluctant to spend 70 Euros for a hood, which is already 1/4 of the price of the lens.
Regards,
Philipp
Sonny Boy Havidson
Established
If I can find one for each lens I have, these all would be so equiped. But it is sometimes hard to do with rangefinders.
DougFord
on the good foot
hood/no hood
contax t3 - no hood
ricoh gr1v - no hood
cle with summi 40mm - hood
cle with rokkor 28mm - no hood
cle with zeiss 35mm 2.8 - no hood
contax t3 - no hood
ricoh gr1v - no hood
cle with summi 40mm - hood
cle with rokkor 28mm - no hood
cle with zeiss 35mm 2.8 - no hood
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Don't care about flare, but a hood protects the front of the lens from a hard knock if that ever happens...
dof
Fiat Lux
I always use a hood. then again I always use a filter and value the extra security against flare even on the less flare-prone lenses I own. And besides, they look cool.
Larky
Well-known
I use a hood because it looks god. 
No other reason other than it ca also work as a stand when I changing lenses.
No other reason other than it ca also work as a stand when I changing lenses.
wray
Well-known
Flare is mine enemy! So just chalk me down as just another hoodie on the street!!
newspaperguy
Well-known
Always a hood.... never a filter unless there is a specific reason for it.
thomasw_
Well-known
Exactly. It depends on the lighting conditions, too. One thing I always put on my lenses is a UV filter so as to avoid rubs or marks on the glass.
Pablito
coco frío
I hope you found common ground.
back alley
IMAGES
always use a hood
but would prefer not to
i like to keep the package small
but would prefer not to
i like to keep the package small
back alley
IMAGES
i'm curious...why?
Chris101
summicronia
I don't know. The juxtaposition of these posts just doesn't sound right.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
I almost always use a hood. Why not, after all? As others have said, it offers mechanical protection/rain protection/etc. as well as increasing contrast and reducing the risk of flare spots. And a well-designed hood ain't that bulky: look at the new 21 and 24 Summiluxes.
Tashi delek,
R.
Tashi delek,
R.
Chris101
summicronia
I'm glad to see that I had not voted on this poll, and I still haven't.
Previously I believed that flare was the thief of contrast, the hider of detail, that any extraneous light hitting my lens was a bad thing. And if you are looking to maximize the faithful rendition of the scene with the photograph, then it certainly is! I have a hood that fits on nearly every one of my lenses - I even have a compendium lens shade for the maximum hoodiness!
Lately however, I have been appreciating flare. Especially when the light hits only part of the lens, and the photograph has huge swirls that were never a part of the original scene. So not I use hoods less often. And I have a fine collection of older uncoated filters that amplify the flare effect many fold. So my vote would be Yes, and No.
By the way, I still use hoods on some lenses/cameras. Like my Leica for example. I have a 35mm Ultron for it. You know the one with the concave front element. I find that, without the hood, on that camera, my fingers end up all over the lens. While I like flare, I am not too fond of smudges. The standard 12585 slotted hood fits on it and is a fine finger-stop.
Previously I believed that flare was the thief of contrast, the hider of detail, that any extraneous light hitting my lens was a bad thing. And if you are looking to maximize the faithful rendition of the scene with the photograph, then it certainly is! I have a hood that fits on nearly every one of my lenses - I even have a compendium lens shade for the maximum hoodiness!
Lately however, I have been appreciating flare. Especially when the light hits only part of the lens, and the photograph has huge swirls that were never a part of the original scene. So not I use hoods less often. And I have a fine collection of older uncoated filters that amplify the flare effect many fold. So my vote would be Yes, and No.
By the way, I still use hoods on some lenses/cameras. Like my Leica for example. I have a 35mm Ultron for it. You know the one with the concave front element. I find that, without the hood, on that camera, my fingers end up all over the lens. While I like flare, I am not too fond of smudges. The standard 12585 slotted hood fits on it and is a fine finger-stop.
Bill58
Native Texan
I ALWAYS be in the 'hood. But no UV filter.
literiter
Well-known
Nearly always a hood. If I want flare, I take the hood off. If I want a filter, I try to use it with a hood.
thinkfloyd
Flippy Nose
Always with a hood. I actually keep it on without lens cap in my bag. Grab and shoot. For protection. I'd rather have a hood than a filter...
hiromu
Established
If it comes with the lens, I do use it. But if it doesn't, then I don't buy one.