Lens hood for the ultimate cheap-skate.

I have read a number of treads regarding this issue and am still unsure on the

merits of using lens hoods. I would like to ask shooters to post some shots

that were taken just before sunrise and just after sunset, and also when the

light is quite low, to show the difference a lens hood makes.

 

I understand that when strong light is coming in from the side (or perhaps even

directly from the front) a lens hood could help because of diffraction. I

generally avoid strong light, but a college of mine who has been shooting for

at least 3 decades says he always shots with a hood on but has no photos to

show how it is better.

 

There are some inexpensive hoods from China (US$2 for a 67mm hood) but I live

in a region called Bohinj in Slovenia, and all spend-thrifts have moved to

Scotland.

 

On more serious cost matters I also need this advice as I would like to

experiment with Zeiss CF lenses on a CM500, and these hoods are just a tad or

two more than $2.

"...show the difference a lens hood makes..."

 

The easiest way is to wear a baseball cap on sunny day. Put it on, take it off - can you see a difference? See how it's easier for your eyes?

 

"...directly from the front..."

 

I don't think a lense hood (or a baseball cap) are going to help with DIRECT light.

Thanks Vladamir. I guess you didn't understand the part of the question that says I shoot mostly in low light. I Guess you are one of those guys that wear baseball caps backwards and sun glasses even when there is no sun.

 

Don't know if you looked at my work, but I looked at yours. You obviously know what you are doing and maybe your advice could have been linked to one of your LANDSCAPE photos and explained how you used a hood to an advantage.

If you can find one, there used to be a step-up ring: B-50 to 52mm, which let you put a 'el-cheapo' rubber lens hood on a 80mm lens for a Hasselblad. (It has been several years back, so I am not sure of the Bayonet size for the 80mm lens, but the step-up ring was good to use.)

Thanks Andy. I think a hood (and baseball caps) are as useful in low light as in full sunshine. Example, if I go for a walk at night, the light from street lamps is very intrusive and my eyes hurt. Hence I usually wear a cap to shield from stray light. Same with lenses, they don't need any light from the sides.

Light of any sort, outside the field of view, tends to reduce contrast. Light bounces around between elements, the inside of the lens and body. This can be concentrated in the form of flare, or more diffuse.

 

Night shots which have lamps outside the field of view can cause severe flare. The fact that the overall light level is low does not matter - all things are relative. Likewise, open sky tends to have a diffuse effect of reducing contrast. Night shots tend to be deceiving because it is usually difficult to see these effects in the viewfinder. Filters also tend to increase flare. I remove any protective UV filters for night shots.

 

The effect of using a lens hood can be dramatic with lenses prone to this effect. The Hasselblad 250/4 Sonnar is a good example, which benefits from the highly effective universal (bellows) shade and baffle. The universal hood is a good investment, by the way, and is actually easier to carry and use in the field than the individual hoods, and much more effective.

 

Even a lens hood is not always effective. I shade the lens with my hand or hat in tough cases - like when shooting close into the sun. Try it sometime! You will not only see the flare disappear, but the overall contrast level increase.

 

I don't have any specific examples, other than the real-time demonstration described above. People that don't use shades probably don't understand their function. People that do use them don't waste time and money proving that they work (it's kinda' obvious).

If you don't want to use a lens hood then don't. It won't have the slightest effect on the vast majority of shots most people take anyway. A hood won't make any difference unless there is a strong light source striking the front element. There are all sorts of other techniques for keeping the sun off without using lens hoods, though many of them are easier with the camera set on a tripod. If you photograph from the shade, use a map or a book or a hand to shield the front element, position a companion to shade your lens, or even stand in front of the camera on a tripod yourself and use a cable release ( Oops, they cost more than $2 too) you can get away without carrying or buying lens hoods. I have done so myself with medium format cameras for many years, as my bag is always full of things I actually need to use.

 

 

And bear in mind that not all circumstances creating flare will be helped by a hood. If the sun's in the frame for example it doesn't much matter whether you use a hood or not. A lightsource just outside the frame is prime flare territory and in many cases the hood isn't designed to shield right to the edge of the frame (for example designed to allow you to use a filter between the hood and the lens). There is absolutely no substitute, hood or no hood, for looking for signs of flare through the finder and checking whether the front element has sun on it.

 

All that said, no-one has ever put forward a serious argument that hoods hurt an image so long as they fit without vignetting with the filters you want in place. They cost very little especially if you have access to eBay, so I'm far from convinced that money is a great reason to decide. I suppose some people might sometimes forget to check for flare and fail to take corrective action, whereby if you habitually shoot with a hood you may well have some protection.

 

So- being aware of the possibility of flare and taking some effective action to avoid it is in my view essential. That you have to use a lens hood to do so is something of an urban myth.

Totally agreee with David Henderson. Use one or not, it's the photographer that makes the photograph.

If you're really cheap - er, frugal but still want a lens hood, <a href="http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/05/how_to_make_a_lens_hood_from_a.html">check this out</a>. I'm sure you can find a bottle to fit your lens, even in Slovenia.

"Use one or not, it's the photographer that makes the photograph."

 

What new-age drivel! A good photographer pays attention to all the details, including equipment selection and technique.

Ok, I kind of got it. I use it or I don't. The problem is that some one claimed (on a MF tread I think) that there is even differences in the resulting images between a genuine 'Blad hood and a no-name brand. Perhaps I am mistaken. I also think that he claimed that using the hood even when there was no sun made a difference.

 

During the winter on a dull and overcast day, I looked outside my window and I saw the most famous Slovenian photographer and he was shooting with a lens hood. At first I thought he was some fool until I recognised who he was. He had something like a D2X with a longish lens.

 

I am at the stage where I can now see subtle differences between my photos and I will get the 67mm hood (D70 18-70mm DX lens) for my own experience. But the hoods for the CFs are a lot more expensive and also that there may be differences between brands.

 

Of course I could look further into Dan's link and save a heap. You sure your not Slovene Dan?

Have a look at this: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gnc7&unified_p=1 thread for really cheap lens hoods that you can make yourself. You might give it a try and compare results with and without a lens hood in your situation.

I don't see how a lens hood helps "because of diffraction". It will certainly reduce undesired scattered light impinging on the front of the lens. For what it is worth, I always use a hood.

Thank you all for contributing to this post.

 

From David Henderson�s reply it would seem that for my style of photography I do not need lens hoods. Not just yet. (I never shoot in the *Vladimir Anisimov�s street lamps is very intrusive and my eyes hurt* scenario. I live inside a National Park.)

 

However, I am somewhat disappointed that no one has photos to show the benefits of lens hoods under the conditions that I mentioned in my question. Had I asked for shots showing the benefits of grad. ND filters I would have received a thousand posts in an instant.

 

Given that the lens hood for the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L USM IS costs �439.99 someone must have some proof of its worth.

 

But as Edward points out *Light of any sort, outside the field of view, tends to reduce contrast. Light bounces around between elements, the inside of the lens and body. This can be concentrated in the form of flare, or more diffuse.* This for me has a lot of weight, so somehow I will scrape together enough Tolars for the Zeiss CFs.

 

And Alex, thanks for clearing up this diffraction business. I never was any good at maths. (or is it a physics thing?)

I use lens hoods because thay also provide physical protection to the front element and -usually in winter- protection from rain and snow.

I'm with Jorge for sure. A good quality, well designed (for the particular lens) hood provides protection from stray light, of course. However, the greatest reason that I use them is for the physical protection.

 

A good hood (not the collapsible rubber generics) will provide protection from the daily bumping into things as well as protection for a real crash. Many moons ago I dropped a Nikon F onto the sidewalk while shooting a Grand Prix race. The metal hood took most of the impact. Its relatively slow crushing rate (relative to the lens or even a filter ring hitting the concrete) reduced the peak forces applied to the lens (and thus to the body). The lens and body required no repairs other than replacement of the hood. The camera and lens are still working fine to this day. Had the hood not been there, I probably would have either had to scrap the equipment or invest quite a sum in repairs.

 

A hood will also keep your fingers off the lens for the most part.

Jorge and Skip, thank you for your tips. I had forgotten the number of times the camera has flopped down from the tripod, and the lens smacking onto the tripod legs. On this point alone a solid lens hood is worth the investment.

This is one BIG TROLL.

 

Using a Zeiss $ 2000 lens and needing to go cheap on a 80$ lens hood wins the TROLL cake, hands down, Andy.

 

Be ashamed if you can manage ...

<P>Maybe you're being a bit harsh, Frank. I have a number of Leica ASPH lenses that come with ridiculously large hoods, some vented. My replacement hoods cost approximately $8 each from eBay dealer <I>heavystar</I>. ASPH lenses don't flare and a rangefinder kit is supposed to be small so these $8 hoods on the front of $2K lenses are perhaps a little incongruous if you are thinking $$$ but who cares? They work great!</P>

Frank, I don�t suppose you have heard of the author Stephen R. Covey. He wrote the book *7 Habits of Highly Effective People*

 

One of the habits (number 5 from memory) is �Seek first to understand before being understood�

 

So, I tried to first see why a person who is a father, husband, German and photographer as you have described yourself would go an attack such as you did. I noticed that you had Mathematician ahead of father and husband. Perhaps this is an insight into your character.

 

I also had a look at your personal home web site and it is hard not to notice all the words in big bold capital letters. In case you didn�t know, on the Internet this equates to shouting.

 

So, onto your TROLL accusation.

 

I own a used D70 and a used 18-70mm DX lens. I am in an enviable position whereby the management of the company where my wife works has lent me the Blad and *$2000* lenses because they know of my passion for photography.

 

My wife is the sole bread-winner and I have not earned an income for the past 6 years. As a foreigner living in Slovenia in a very remote village, jobs are not falling out of the sky. Do you know what it is like to have to ask your wife to buy you used camera equipment? I guess you probably do not. You have mathematics ahead of you wife.

 

I suggest that before you again start typing in big capital letters you go and buy the book by Mr Covey and at least read chapter 5.

I was thinking today of a model for forums,moderated or not. Large noisy dim lit dance floor. People bumping asses all the time... I always got a hood with my lenses. I accept the logic of squeezing all the contrast possible from lenses,even though I trust internal baffles, and multicoating. And the protection factor is reassuring. The petal type are likely not as good ast the bellows Lindah brand type. That is why cinematographers always use the adustable and fairly costly ones. (I have a 67 mm rubber Hoya folding one gathering dust,screw in type, I will give away if anyone wants it. Just send me a mail address via e mail. Aloha)

Gerry, Very fine response. Perhaps you have even read Robert Bly. Will pass, on the free hood offer. Aussie battlers battle on.

</P>Frank was a little trigger-happy, but all he knew was that you have a <I>very</I> expensive camera ($000s) and you were asking whether it's worth spending more than 2 bucks for a lens hood. OK, you have justified yourself now, but I don't think it makes Frank look bad. BTW, the folding rubber hood by Hoya is very good. I have one. More than 2 bucks though.</P>

Look Brian, Whether or not Frank looks bad is none of my concern. And I didn�t need to make any justification for myself.

 

The question I asked � assuming you read it word by word � was essentially saying are lens hoods of any benefit. Especially in my case where I shoot in low lighting conditions. There is no need to differentiate between Nikon, Hasselblad or any other system. I did add that costs were a factor but it in no way changed the direction of the question.

 

I thanked those who pointed out that a hood can/will protect a lens and camera from bumps and so on. I also thanked those who suggested that even when there is no strong light that a hood can also be used to an advantage.

 

The post could have and should have ended when I thanked Jorge and Skip.

 

But Frank just couldn�t help himself and wanted to stir trouble. I also sometimes want to say some harsh words to those who seemingly ask stupid questions. But instead of wasting my time on this sort of nonsense, I go out and take photographs.

 

If you throw hand-grenades at an Aussie you had better be prepared to get one back that will blow up in your face.

 

BTW, a used Hasselblad system is no more expensive than a used Nikon D70 setup.

 

So, Brian, Frank and anyone else who has been following all this load of crap, lets just call it a day and move on.

Correction, my unused in box rubber hood is a Tiffen.Says 8.95 on the box. Offer still good. I get CDs sometimes from UK,slowly but surely,by Royal Mail and it is not too costly..another issue,but we are a global economy and all that.