brian_moody Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Well My first Post. Maybe a simple one but here it goes. Been reading this post for two years now. You have all taught me a great deal; thank you. Started with a 20D and a few lenses and now have upgraded my gear to L lenses, a 580EX, portrait lighting and have my eye on the 5D.(I may not have a wife after but....) So my question...My L lenses came with hoods. Is there a right time and a wrong time to use the hood on a lens, ie. outdoor/indoor, low light/bright light, shooting indoor portraits? Thank you in advance for your thoughts....Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I always use my hoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I use the hoods all the time, both indoors and outdoors. They will provide a measure of protection for the front element against bumps and optical protection against flair. Top tip, start talking to your wife about the number of times you need a second camera body and how well the 5D complements the 20D. It establishes the need and softens the blow. Worked for me ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnson_d. Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I guess one "wrong" time would be if you want to use your built in flash and the hood causes a shadow. I take them off or reverse them when I'm not using certain lenses in order to save space. I consider something that takes up more space than necessary as being "wrong". That's about it for me. I pretty much keep them on otherwise. I'm not sure what you are getting at with indoor/outdoor/portrait question. Hoods prevent stray light from entering the lens and offer some protection of the front element. If you don't think either will be a problem, then I guess it wouldn't be necessary but I wouldn't say it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_r2 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 There is a chance for flare in every situation with light. Even controlled studio setups may have some side-reflection kick in. In journalism, a stray indoor light may cause it. For that reason, I always use my lens hoods. Never leave home without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcolwell Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 The right time to use a hood is when you're taking photos. The wrong time is when you want to fit the lens in a small bag, then you reverse the hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I totally agree with all the "hood users" out there. Occasionally I'll be watching some event on "tee-vee" and see a photographer shooting something (usually photojournalists) and waving their Canon DSLR around with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens on it - with no hood. And I can't help thinking, WTF? They make lens hoods for a reason. ;-) BTW, they also help protect your lenses as well as keep the flare down. I always use a hood, personally. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 >> Is there a right time and a wrong time to use the hood on a lens. Wrong time? Only when you try to shoot extreme macro and the lens hood prevents you from getting closer to your subject. Right time? All other times. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin_sibson1 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Well, that's a clear enough message about using hoods, and I agree. But which hood? I'm probably not the only person that has some doubts about how effective the EW-83E hood is - it is certainly very bulky and clumsy - and replacing it with an alternative for 1.6-factor use on the 17~40 and 16~35 has almost become standard practice. What's less well-known is that even on the 10~22, you can almost get away with using the EW-83H instead, and only very minor surgery would be required to eliminate occlusion completely. Another interesting option is to use the ET-67B hood on the 100/2.8USM. Much neater than the ET-67, and probably quite adequate in most circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I'll be a bit of an exception, but only a bit. I generally do use the good in most outdoor situations, mostly to avoid lens flare from the sun. In other outdoor situations I tend to most often use the hood if I don't need to work quickly. However, if a shot is quickly evolving - especially if the light doesn't demand the use of the hood - I don't bother. I almost never use the hood indoors, unless lighting challenges demand it. I agree that a hood can provide additional protection for the lens, especially for those who carry their camera unprotected. I generally don't carry my camera that way - it is usually in a pack or a bag of some sort and I take it out for the shot, so the camera protection value of the hood is not so critical for me. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 The disadvantages of hoods for me are the inconvenience and bulk: in some bags it can make the difference between fitting and not fitting. If a picture opportunity is short lived, putting on or unreversing the hood might meen a missed or muffed shot. Walking with a camera slung on shoulder with a zoom mounted is hard enough: adding another 2"~4" of hood doesn't help. Adjusting a polarizer with a deep hood is a royal pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_myers Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Hi, I agree with most of the other responses. There is very seldom a time I won't use a lens hood. I've got at least one each for every lens, whether it came with one or not. If I buy a lens that doesn't include a hood, it's the first accessory I'll buy. A hood is almost always beneficial, and practically never does any harm to the image (unlike a "protection" filter left on the lens all the time, that always degrades the image to some degree by adding additional optics in the light path, and can really cause problems in certain situations). A few situations where a hood might not be used: Photographing through a window, especially on a car or airplane. If the hood touches the glass, vibration will be transmitted to the camera and will make for blurry pics. Sometimes the solution here is a rubber hood. But, that's not always possible and just removing the hood may be necessary. Extreme close-up or macro photography is another situation where a hood can get in the way, bumping the subject. Also, say you have no choice but to photograph through a chain link fence and want the fence to "disapppear". Set a large aperture and get the front of the lens as close as possible to the fence, probably without a hood. This works pretty well with telephotos, but not so well with wide angle lenses. Yes, it's a pain to fit a lens cap, rotate a polarizer or attach another type filter while a deep lens hood is on. For the polarizer, at least, a few creative types have come up with lens hoods that have little rubber wheels that bear on the edge of the filter and allow it to be turned (much like a drop-in polarizing filter in a super telephoto lens). Unfortunately, these are pretty much limited to a select few matched lenses, hoods and filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 The only times I don't use a hood are for extreme macro, or if I'm using a Cokin holder with grad ND filters and a hood won't physcially fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 If all your lenses have hoods, that's great, use them. In my case and many others they'd have to buy all the hoods which can be extremely expensive. In the past when I have had separate hoods I have found them to be a pain in the neck. My superteles have built in hoods which I use all the time, no matter what, and additional hoods that I only use when I know I can't lose them if they accidentally fall from the lens...cliff views, swimming pool viewing galleries...that sort of thing. Since I refuse to drop the cash required for all the other hoods, and since I can't get any more hood, than I already have, for my 14mm lens, I use my hands on a very regular basis. Often better than a hood since you are thinking about what you are doing and can see when you have actually managed to eliminate the flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 The only occassion I do not have a hood in use is when a macro subject is closer to the front element of the lens than the protroding hood will allow. Generally (except for some teles and zooms) hoods stay on the lens in my bag too. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_mathews1 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 It is inconvenient to have the lens hood on when using a polarizing filter, which is about the only time I don't use mine a hood. I've heard of shooters cutting a small opening in the side of the hood that will face down to access the filter. I'm usually using a polarizer when I'm facing away from the sun (the maximum polarizing effect is 90 degrees from the sun) so it's a low flare situation. Otherwise, use them all the time as a "bumper" for the lens and stray reflections that could cause flare. And while your at it, get the best UV filter you can afford to further protect the glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_moody Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Thank you all for the responses. I pretty much do use my Hoods all the time. I was just curious as I have seen "professional photographers" with them off at events I attend. It got me thinking and I couldn't really find any text on it. I usually always have my hoods on as I have read many times in this post about stray light. They have proved to come in handy for protection and "stands' as I switch between my 70-200 IS and my 24-105 at my kids Basketball games. Works great! I did fork out some dollars for good UV and a 77mm Polarizer. Thank you again. bm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Wrong time to keep the hood on: The outter diameter of the hood is bigger than the lens. I often have trouble fitting the lens and hood combo (even when mounted in storage position) into my camera bags when taking multiple lenses with multiple hoods. I would rather sacrifice hood and leave it at home rather than sacrificing room and end up not beable to bring all the lenses I'll want to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 In that case, I would rather buy a bigger bag. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now