Lens hoods don't really do very much

<p>An alternative demonstration for the uselessness of a lens hood including a better and more convenient remedy for flare...</p>

<p>...the hand.</p><div></div>

<p>And yeah, I didn't do a shot using the lens hood to see if it would fix this.</p>

<p>Why?<br>

(pause for a long inhale "Ace Ventura" style)</p>

<p>Because I was using a lens that already had a small built-in hood and I couldn't find one larger that would fit over it and even if I had to switch back to my kit lens which has its own <strong>CUSTOM</strong> fitted hood that won't fit on any other lens but the kit, I hated using it anyway because it falls off all the time to where I was so frustrated with it I decided to use something better, my hand. So out of spite I decided to leave out the lens hood shot because I hate this freakin' proprietary custom made crap approach to something as simple as a lens hood!</p>

<p>There, I feel much better.</p>

<p>LOL Tim. I actually read that like Jim Carey would have done in the movie.</p>

<p>I always use the lens hood. I don't use a filter for "protection" of the front element so IMO the hood is doing double duty - helping to prevent flare and protecting the front element.</p>

<p>Here's my justification for using one all the time - I picked up a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens ($1950 after taxes) after work one night. Of course the weather was great and I just HAD to take it out and play with it BUT I also have two kids to play with. So, my son was riding his bike and I was walking with the camera on my hip (Black Rapid R-strap) - he thought it would be funny to come barrelling at me and swerve away at the last second - problem was this was his first year without training wheels. He swerved a little late and when he swung the handle bars they caught the hood as they went by. I'm pretty sure that with the angle the camera sits on my hip, if I didn't have the hood on, the bars would have caught the front element or filter ring and instead of me saying for him to be more careful when I have my camera with me I might have had a coronary instead. There is a little mark in the hood but it is barely noticable.</p>

<p>But hey, if you don't want to use one that is fine too.</p>

I am not familiar with all the varieties of digital camera lenses but with older film cameras there was a wide variation of lens mounts some of which provided a lot of shading with no additional lens shade needed. I think each lens needs to be evaluated separately rather than trying to apply a general rule.

<p>Maybe the conclusion is, a hood is useful if it makes a visible difference; excess baggage if it doesn't. </p>

<p>I, like many others, use one full time primarily for lens protection, paying extra attention in situations where flare might be an issue even with a hood. </p>

<p>Oh, I forgot to add, a lens hood makes DSLR owners look even more pretentious out in public especially the fancy tulip variety.</p>

<p>A quote from the writings of Snappy Snapperton, Point and Shoot Guru...</p>

<p><em>"Oooh, you have to have a lens hood to make you look like you're a professional while your kid's tethered to you on a leash in the park. Fancy pancy, are we? And I bet you have a leash on your lens hood and lens cap as well. Might it be we have control issues as well?"</em></p>

<p>And also, if I used a larger lens hood that came with the lens in that shot posted above it wouldn't have worked anyway.</p>

"Oh, I forgot to add, a lens hood makes DSLR owners look even more pretentious out in public especially the fancy

tulip variety."

 

The vast majority of people don't know the difference between a Holga and a Hasselblad.

Really, why would one care what they think of one's lens hood?

<p>It was a joke, Richard.</p>

<p>Just being silly. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Where I live its not sun we use lens hoods for protection from, its rain - they work brilliantly.</p>

<p><em>"Oh, I forgot to add, a lens hood makes DSLR owners look even more pretentious out in public especially the fancy tulip variety."</em></p>

<p>And just the opposite. When I see someone outdoors sans lens hood, I think rookie! Noob! Doesn't know better! ;-)<br>

There are no cases where the lack of a lens hood is better. None. Just noob workflow.</p>

<p>What is a noob?</p>

Noob = newbie = novice.

<p>Well...if nothing else, a lens hood surely offers some major protection for the lens if dropped. </p>

<p>"Well...if nothing else, a lens hood surely offers some major protection for the lens if dropped."</p>

<p>I have direct first hand evidence of this being true. Dropped my 80-200mm lens when it fell off my tripod onto the road a couple years ago. The lens hood literally shattered, but the lens is still going strong today.</p>

<p>Richard commented on my photo examples:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you explain what you mean that the outdoor is "soft", please?<br /> The softness that I see is coming from the dialed defocus. You have the back half of her body, head, and hair defocused from apparently her ear back. Her chest is behind that thresh-hold as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both images were shot at identical apertures, at f/2.0, and at identical de-focus settings, f/2.0 'F' (front) The exterior image appears soft, i.e., lowered contrast, lowered acutance (which is partly due to the more diffuse lighting), but I was postulating, that it may also be due to decreased contrast in the lens because of the highly diffused daylight causing internal flare. After seeing these examples, I vowed to only shoot my DC 105mm with a bellows lens shade, hoping that would contribute to higher contrast images when shooting outdoors (I just haven't happened to use it since, or had a chance to perform any further "tests"). I was just wondering if this theory held any water since the images looked so different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I found the 105 DC's focusing very problematic; auto focus was virtually useless in my experience. I can blame part of that on my smaller DX viewfinder and my presbyopia, but not all of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I found the DC 105mm to be tricky as well. At f/2.0 on an FX body, the depth-of-focus is razor-thin. I also noticed that the 'F' (front) and 'R' (rear) de-focus ring settings don't appear to work as advertised. With aperture set at f/2.0, and the de-focus ring set to f/2.0 'F' I found the lens to be razor sharp. However, I noticed that at any of the 'R' settings, a "soft-focus" effect appears to be introduced by the lens. This is not what Nikon says should be happening when the de-focus ring value matches the actual aperture. But the lens is so sharp at the f/2.0 'F' setting, I decided to keep it.</p>

<p>I've got over 1000 images shot in the 5 years I've had my Pentax DSLR and never used a lens hood. Of course I'm very careful not to drop it, but even then I lose an $80 kit lens. All the rest of my lenses are old legacy film lenses I paid around $100 each from KEH and eBay and I never use a hood for those either.</p>

<p>I'ld understand someone wanting to protect a $200 and up lens with a lens hood. I wasn't aware that a lens hood protects a lens mainly because I've never tested it to see if it actually does. </p>

<p>Steve said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When they shoot multi million dollar movies with $100K Panavision cameras. They always use a matte box type (rectangular) shade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's true. Not only do they regularly use matte boxes, they also employ "hard matte" inserts in the front of the matte box (an opaque piece of rectangular metal or plastic with a smaller rectangle cut-out) specifically designed for the focal length of the lens being used. In addition, an "eyebrow," or French flag may be clipped on top of the matte box as well. Finally, any lights aiming in the camera's direction are typically flagged off with a solid (black flag). Cinematographers go to great lengths to avoid having any stray light hit their lenses. Using matte boxes on still photographic lenses can only benefit your image in terms of increased contrast and higher acutance.</p>

<p>I also don't keep any protective filters on any of my lenses (nor caps), and rely on lens hoods for primary protection. However, I've been thinking of maybe making an exception, and using one on my brand new $2,000 AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G (damn, that lens was expensive!). The exposed front element on that lens just makes me nervous.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wasn't aware that a lens hood protects a lens mainly because I've never tested it to see if it actually does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And it's probably best that you let the manufacturers do the "test crash dummy" thing, Tim! ;) I've never "dropped" a camera...but I did break a cardinal rule by not zipping my camera bag after opening it...which resulted in camera and lense hitting concrete as I drug the bag from the back seat of my car. Broke the on-board flash on my Nikon...and put a dent in the metal housing near the glass of a 50mm/1.8 (another $100 lens like yours... ;)...that wasn't wearing a lens hood. It could have been worse. I've only falllen once with camera in hand, but was amazed at the reflex that resulted in my protecting my gear by holding it high in the air while allowing my body to take the full punishment of sliding down a muddy, rocky hillside on my back. My wife pointed out that cameras and lenses can be replaced...I can't be. But somehow that didn't occur to me at the moment. All I could see was dollar signs flashing before my eyes...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All I could see was dollar signs flashing before my eyes...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All one hundred of them? </p>

<p>Just joking about the $100 lens you mentioned. Good to see someone with their priorities and sanity in tact when it comes to spending money on camera gear.</p>

<p>I've had that same quick talk with myself as you on whether to save my gear or my butt, but the shock of the moment never allows me to do the math. I hit the ground with a thump, take a deep breath and examine every inch of my $400 camera and $80 lens for damage. Can't tell my camera to walk it off as I limp away shooting more pictures.</p>

<p>Back in the '80's as a graphic artist I noticed the Argylle stat/photocopy camera with bellows on rails I often used for production purposes had a hood permanently attached to its lens that was larger than my current camera's. Couldn't even lift that camera back then. </p>

<p>I was just asking about this very same thing. I am trying to Improve my pictures and was Inquiring whether a hood would help or not. I got told the same thing that they really do not make much of a difference unless the situation extremely calls for one@</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I see someone outdoors sans lens hood, I think rookie! Noob! Doesn't know better! ;-)<br />There are no cases where the lack of a lens hood is better. None. Just noob workflow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken is being a wee bit hyperbolic here. I certainly wouldn't be so categorical about hood use, but I do tend to use them virtually all the time.</p>

<p>But if hoods are for pros, does that mean filters are for noobs? After all, it's foolhardy to leave our shafts, er, lenses unprotected. :-)</p>

<p>A month ago I proved to myself that a lens hood is very important protection.<br>

I was running with my camera to photograph a bike race. I hopped over a guard rail and tripped, landing on my knee and camera.<br>

I took a pretty hard fall on my knee. It affected my walking for 2 weeks and my cycling for 4. I also landed hard on the camera (D90 + 24-70 f2.8). The hood took a nasty scrape. The camera got a small scratch. Lens was fine.<br>

Had I not been using the hood, I believe I would have damaged the lens. The impact was on the front of the hood. Without the hood, I would have hit the front of the lens barrel, and potentially broken the front element of an expensive lens.</p>

"There are no cases where the lack of a lens hood is better."

 

Well maybe. If you are using the camera's built in flash the lens hood may block some of the light resulting in a dark area on the bottom of the image, particularly at wider angles. I was taking some snapshots at a graduation yesterday and had to remember to remove the lens hood. (Seeing a black semicircle on the bottom of the first few images helped me to remember.)

<p>I just had to post this late reply. The two images looked so different I pasted one over the other and removed alternate slices of the upper layer.</p><div></div>