dcheung Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 My question deals with flare with this lens. I've always shot this lens with the hood on when I'm outside. However, this weekend, due to space issues in the camera bag, it would be a huge hassle to bring the hood. I will be shooting outdoors while hiking during the day. The question is, how bad is the flare in this lens when shooting outside without the hood? With the hood, I've never had a problem with flare, but don't have experience shooting it outdoors without hood. I normally would test this on my own but it's over cast right now and starting to get dark where I live so I can't put the sun close to the edge of the frame and do some test shots. Anyone tested this before or can help answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcox2 Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Never used it without the hood. Regarding space in the bag, you can reverse mount the hood onto the lens to save space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_axford1 Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I've never shot w/o the hood, but why don't you simply put the hood on the lens backwards? It fits right over top and takes up almost no space. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I can't recollect ever using the hood that came with mine. I know that can't be good practice, but anyway, I've never noticed flare. I believe it's one of the better lens in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former P.N Member Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Take some test shots with a bare light bulb in the same position you would have the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 The hood is mounted on the lens in revers position so, space shouldn't ba an issue. I never use any lens without the hood... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 You won't see any diff except when a strong light source is in or just out of the image area. Honestly I find my hat or hand works better than the supplied hood... Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 >>Honestly I find my hat or hand works better than the supplied hood...<< That's a heavy combo (5D+grip+70-200 f/2.8L IS) to hold with one hand though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 On top of all this: the hood is a great way to avoid lens damage. Use the hood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I like to live dangerously. My lenses and cameras are butt naked (lost most of my hoods anyway). Furthermore, I don't wear a seatbelt and never wear a raincoat on a date. But, alas, I normally use a tripod or monopod with heavy rigs. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted May 18, 2007 Author Share Posted May 18, 2007 In terms of space, it's the width or diameter that concerns me. With the hood, the lens is much wider, no matter if it's reversed on the lens or not. It doesn't fit into the pouch that I want to put it in right now if I keep the lens hood on. The pouch isn't wide enough. I'm gonna try to take some test shots with a light bulb in a bit. Thanks for the comments so far. Keep them coming. I'm guessing a light bulb test is probably not sufficient since the difference in EV between the SUN and a properly exposed scene is way bigger than the difference between a light bulb and the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delwyn_ching Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Sometimes I use the hood, sometimes when I'm lazy I don't. No flare either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Hoods? Good for stopping flare (when the sun shines). Better for keeping the lens front drip-free when it rains or snows. You wont notice a hood's absence when you dont need it, but you sure will notice its absence when you DO need it. Got one? Use it! I always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipd Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Don't leave the hood at home. It provides more physical protection for the lens than it does blocking stray light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 "It doesn't fit into the pouch that I want to put it in right now if I keep the lens hood on. The pouch isn't wide enough." Get a wider pouch. (Problem solved. Next problem, please.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_french3 Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 To answer the actual question, the flare's not unduly bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 <p><i>On top of all this: the hood is a great way to avoid lens damage.</i></p><p>Wow. That's almost as bad as saying that you lose image quality every time you reopen a JPEG. It's also as flawed as thinking that a half-helmet will protect you in a motorcycle crash. Won't do anything for the half of your head that is not covered.</p><p>A hood will only <i>help</i> protect the <i>front</i> of the lens <i>if</i> the object about to cause damage is bigger than the opening of the hood. It's not going to do anything for something hitting your lens from the side, nor will it help with something smaller than the opening of the hood hitting your lens through said opening.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted May 18, 2007 Author Share Posted May 18, 2007 Jon Austin, I suppose that a solution in your world of infinite money, time and space. The rest of us have real world issues to deal with. John M's comment about blocking rain drops has convinced me to bring the hood. Weather calls for rain :( so keeping the lens drip free is important. Thx for the comments people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnicholson Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 M. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've had this lens hanging off my camera, hanging around my neck, reach to pick something up and have the hood touch the surface in front of me instead of the lens housing or glass. Weiyang, if you don't use the hood and you miss the perfect shot or damage the front of you lens you're going to wish you brought a bigger bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Jamie, I believe it. However, that's nearly the only scenario (also a directly perpendicular fall or bumping against a wall) where it would offer much protection. I'm not advising against using one -- just advocating for recognizing the limitations of the protections it affords. I can't begin to tell you how many times I (or my car) has been hit by projectiles from lawn mowers in my neighborhood, including gravel, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Kinda illustrates a point above, I think. (As does Me Myself and Irene, for film buffs) (Photo Credit: Brian Wilson http://www.ski-epic.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_yap Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 To begin with, I'm not sure if you should take that lens with you. I do mountain trekking from time to time and that lens is definitely not something I would consider - not due to size but weight. If you do trekking often, perhaps it's worth getting the 70-300 DO lens. Perfect tele lens for trekking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcheung Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 So I ended up taking the hood and it was definitely useful cuz it rained a lot. The hood kept the front element from being saturated with water drops. Ya, I have considered getting a different lens for trekking. I had the 70-300 IS or 70-200 f4 IS in mind. This weekend though, the weather proofing of the 2.8 IS definitely gave me confidence to use it outside. It got pretty wet and it's still fine. thanks ppl 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