Hood for 20 worthwhile?

I just purchased a nice nikkor 20mm f2.8 AIS (MF) and I am wondering

if it is worth trying to find the right hood for it: HK-14. Some

opinions I have seen say that the hoods for lenses that wide are

mostly useless.

 

I have screw in hoods on most of my short nikkors for protection at

least. But the HK-14 clamps on instead of screwing in, so won't be as

robust (I think). Anyone use this hood, is it worthwhile?

Besides keeping out extraneous light, hoods are worthwhile on all lenses

insofar as they protect the front element from inadvertent contact with fingers

or more damaging impacts. If you drop the lens and the hood hits first, your

lens will probably survive a lot better than it would without the hood.

I have that lens and hood. The hood is so short, front to rear, that it offers very little, if any, protection for the front element. At the same time, it is so large in diameter that you can't realistically leave it on the lens all the time, at least if it has to go into a camera bag. Due to its shape, the number of times when it makes a difference is relatively small. Still, I'm glad I have it and usually use it when I use that lens. OTOH, I bought the hood used and didn't pay a lot for it. If it were me I'd keep an eye out for a used one and get one when the right deal comes along, but don't sweat it between now and then.

I have the earlier 20mm f/3.5 which suffers from all sorts of internal reflections if the sun is in or near the frame. I think a square hood would keep out more stray light than the round version. Having said that I often use my hand to shade the front element or use a 'flare buster' shade. I have to be careful not to end up in the picture myself though!

I bought mine a few months ago. It "appears" that it makes a difference. I'd say it's worth the small amount of money, but it's a pain to carry it around because of the same reasons mentioned above.