Square or Round?

So we agree the rear element should be protected at all times......

Why not do the same for the front?

A lot of folks, for good or not, use some type of protective filter over the front lens element (protective, UV, etc.). A lens shade, regardless of design, will also protect the front element.

While shades have changed in design, they've also changed in attaching, and materials. The lens hood on my older Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is a type which clamps to the inside of the filter threads. There are older designs, built-in, and screw-in which are a bit dangerous. A good whack may dislodge the shade, but you're likely to damage the metal filter threads on the lens. It's a bit easier to unscrew the front filter ring assembly on the older designs, but good luck finding those today. You're also a bit less likely to affect the picture if there's a minor scuff or scratch on the front element.

On today's lenses the filter threads are likely plastic, making them easier to disgorge a softer plastic lens hood, without damaging filter threads.

That stated, never say never. ;) ;)

@dennisbrown,

IE: Nikon snap-on hoods on my old Nikkors... NO WAY, Nikon did make regular screw-on hoods also, but are harder to find.(I have one for my 1972 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S that is Nikon made for that lens). That is all I use on my older non AF Nikkors.

Filters are OK, I shoot B&W only, (color is digital), But the palm of my hand in front of my lens when I am walking about is also good protection also, and a hard bump on my hand won't leave broken hand scratching my front element, as a shattered filter can. (A habit from the rangefinder days to protect the shutter from Sun Pin-hole damage)

@dennisbrown,

IE: Nikon snap-on hoods on my old Nikkors... NO WAY, Nikon did make regular screw-on hoods also, but are harder to find.(I have one for my 1972 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S that is Nikon made for that lens). That is all I use on my older non AF Nikkors.

Filters are OK, I shoot B&W only, (color is digital), But the palm of my hand in front of my lens when I am walking about is also good protection also, and a hard bump on my hand won't leave broken hand scratching my front element, as a shattered filter can. (A habit from the rangefinder days to protect the shutter from Sun Pin-hole damage)

Quelle dommage.

Quelle dommage.

What a shame? for what?

But what about grads? Do folks use grads or just blend multiple exposures?

I don't bother with those - bracketed exposure and blending images in post give better results IMHO and I don't have to fiddle around with the square filters (the only viable option for graduated ND filters). I do have a stack of round ND filters, a vari-ND filter and a polarizer - all of which never seem to be in the bag when I need them. I also have now the first lens that takes 82mm filters - and all the ones I do have are 77mm!

In case anyone's still unconvinced of the efficacy of tulip-shaped modern hoods:

Here's a 35mm f/2 Nikkor prime with its old screw-in Nikon hood.

Note how a large amount of front element is visible at this camera angle.

Here's what the hood's shading looks like - shot with a 24mm lens.

Now here's a modern 35mm prime with its supplied 'tulip' hood.

Barely any of the front element is visible.

And this is the shading pattern of the hood.

Not quite fully rectangular, but it excludes much more stray light than the old circular thing. It also reverses on the lens for easy storage and fits in a couple of seconds. With little danger of scratching the lens.

FWIW, Nikon appear to have learned little over the years. The cylindrical hood supplied with their 35mm f/1.8 prime DX standard lens completely fails the 'fingertip test' I advocated earlier. And what a fail; the hood turns out to be about 1 inch too shallow!

Incidentally, who, outside of a war zone, has ever had a shattered filter scratch the front element of their lens? And for that to be the only damage?

A knock or fall hard enough to shatter a filter isn't going to do a lens much good in any case. So who's to say that if such a thing ever occured that the lens would have escaped unhurt without its filter?

I never used 'protection' filters until decent multicoating became common, but in about 40 years of having UV filters on the front of my lenses, I've never once come close to shattering one accidentally. OTOH, the filters have probably saved those lens from many a clumsy fingerprint, lens cap scrape, a ton of dust, a gallon of condensation, and much other assorted stickiness and detritus.

Plus for any critical shot I remove the filter.

IMO, inventing very unlikely scenarios to support an argument really is grasping at straws.

A properly designed petal hood gives maximum protection from flare, not minimal; second only to a rectangular hood of the correct dimensions, or a compendium hood fitted with a suitable matte.

Found this image on the web that illustrates this quite nicely: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rg1A9.png (source: Why are some lens hoods petal shaped and others not?).

Hoods for longer focal lengths lenses are often not petal-shaped because they would have to be seriously long for the petal shape to be necessary to avoid vignetting.

Nikon's 16-80 comes with a rectangular petal-shaped hood - probably the most effective design but with the drawback that it takes up quite some space when the lens is stored in the bag. AFAIK, this is the only hood of that particular design that Nikon offers or has offered.

Nikon's old screw-in round hoods are some of the worst designs you can find.

But they are soo pretty....

NIkon RF 13,5 cm lens and screw-in hood

(pay no attention to the Jupiter in the foregraound)