Lens hood effect minimal? (400D&70-200/4L IS)

[matthijs]

<p>Gentlemen,</p>

<p>This afternoon I did some tests with and without hood.<br /> To my eyes the difference is minimal to negligable.<br /> But in this forum there are several experienced photographers who state that you should always use a hood.</p>

<p>But I don't see that much differences.</p>

<p>Is that because:<br /> - My eyes aren't that effective at seeing color differences.</p>

<p>- My lens is that good that it doesn't exactly need a hood like lenses in the old times did.</p>

<p>- My test wasn't good. (This is of course a bogus reason. When I'm out shooting I'm not shooting in test circumstances either.)</p>

<p>- Another reason that I did not think of.</p>

<p>Attached are the two pictures with the most difference. Shot in the general direction of the sun.</p><div></div>

[matthijs]

<p>And the other one that seems slightly more vivid to me, especially in the OOF trees.</p><div></div>

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>Matthijs, which lens are you using? Does it have a recessed front element?<br>

I assume the two pics have been processed identically? FWIW, I've always found that a hood seems to optimise contrast and general fidelity. Maybe it just minimises flare of course.<br>

Jim</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I don't see flare in either picture. A lot depends upon the angle light enters the lens. Regardless, I was shooting a wedding with two 35s and a Bronica around my neck. I was tryiing to mount my 70-200 2.8L on an EOS 1n when I dropped the lens on a concrete sidewalk. It bounced back up off the hood and fell harmlessly to the ground. It was, of course, saved by the hood. I do think hoods make quite a difference but there are experts who know more about that than I do. It did look hazy which may suppress flare so you have to do this test in several different positions particularly when you can actually see the flare in the viewfinder. </p>

[matthijs]

<p>Jim, as I said in the header:</p>

<h1>(400D&70-200/4L IS)</h1>

<p>Wow, that's a big font used in the header... I just did a cut and paste and now it looks like I'm shouting...</p>

<p>@Jim: The pictures are shot and processed identically. Exposure and )though handheld) shooting angle is the same. For these JPG's posted I converted the RAW image to a 700 pixel wide image using my default settings for picture style (faithful, +2 saturation an sharpness 5). The only thing I forgot is AWB but when I use Canon DPP and I manually set it at "daylight" the difference is still only a very minor increase in vividness.</p>

<p>@Dick: this lens hardly flares unless you really shoot the sun. In my normal use it never flares. I understand the protective qualities of the hood but that's not why it's recommended is it? I thought it was because of the image quality.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>

<p>On most shots the lens hood won't make a difference, on a small percentage it will. I had a similar experience as Dick. I took a fall on a patch of ice last winter. My camera hit the ground with the lens hood taking the impact. The camera and lens bounced up and I caught it. The $1000 lens & body were fine thanks to that hood. If lens hoods aren't recommended because of their protective qualities, they certainly should be!</p>

</p>

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>Apologies,Matthijs, I was scanning too fast (as usual). I re-checked the body of your post for the detail but forgot to check the header. In fact it was the header that attracted me to the post :(<br>

I have owned the 70-200L for several years and am repeatedly knocked out with the quality in terms of colour, saturation and sharpness. Mine doesn't have IS but I always use it with the hood because I think the front element is such that it needs the cover - a bit like looking into the distance while holding a hand to the forehead to shield the eyes. I'll try mine with and without in future but, intuitively, I guess that while trying to gather reflected light using just a few degrees of view a lens needs as little "additional information" as possible.<br>

Sorry, this is badly expressed.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Here's an easy way to see what difference a lens hood makes...</p>

<p>Point the lens (w/o hood) in the general direction of the sun, so that sunlight is hitting the front element but that the sun is a bit out of the frame. Then have a friend move their hand so that it shades the front element but doesn't show up in the picture - while you are looking through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>No need to take any pictures, just have your friend move their hand in and out of place while you observe the effect through the viewfinder. It's generally pretty noticeable - darker shadows, more contrasty image.</p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>My experience is similar to Jack Nordine's... I have fallen with my 70-200mm lens hitting the concrete, hood first. The hood (a cheap round screw-in model) was toast while the lens and camera suffered no damage.<br>

Besides the physical protection, the hood does protect from lens flare. How much improvement depends on the type of lens and the angle of the sun in relationship to than lens. The closer you are shooting into the sun, the more you need that protection - however when shooting directly into the sun - nothing will protect from flare.</p>

[george_widman]

<p>Have you ever stood inside a barn, well back from the barn door, on a sunny day? You were inside a giant lens sunshade! And through the door, you saw fantastic detail. As you began to step toward the door, the edges of you eyes began to pick up random light, and everything began to lose contrast., and the first apparent loss of detail happened with loss of shadow detail.<br>

Years ago, Leica got it right with rectangular sunshades, designed for particular lenses.<br>

Round sunshades are stupid: shades should correspond to the shape of the imager.<br>

There are excellent bellows shades, in the shape of the imager, available. They are clunky, awkward, etc., but by golly, on a commercial shoot on a sunny day, flat-out essential.<br>

Just like being inside a barn.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Not too many of us have actually stood in a barn! I've read about them seen a few while driving in between cities on the mainland USA. A better example is wearing sunglasses while walking into the afternoon sun. Lots of glare and flare. Damn hard to see anything. Don a long billed cap and, bingo, freakin' crystal clear. Actually my baseball cap makes a much better hood than the one that shipped with my 70-200 4L. I use it all the time to shade the lens.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Yes, 80-90% of the time it makes little or no difference, but when it's needed it can make a big difference. Like the others here I always keep mine on for protection. If you take night or late evening shots it is essential for removing flare from bright lights.<br>

Neill</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I use my lenshood at all time to protect my front element, I don't use UV filter.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Mostly against flair and protection, don't always get to pick where my subject is. Try shooting inside where there are bright lights or when the sun is in front and to the top. If you have the hood why not just use it? It does not diminish the image and may make it better? I can better understand the non use of filters but not the non use of hoods.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I do see a difference in the contrast/color of the wall and planter boxes in the two photos, but I don't know if the hood is causing that.</p>

<p>If you've ever raised your hand up to shield your eyes when looking toward a bright object, you are mimicking the effect of the lens hood. I use one always: indoors/outdoors.</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>I can better understand the non use of filters but not the non use of hoods.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't use lens hoods, because I want to use the space they take up for other things, and because I resent the time they use, especially in conjunction with filters. That said, I'm more than aware of the need to keep sun off the front element and use all sorts of improvised methods to prevent that happening, on that minority of photographs when any action is necessary. It is perfectly possible to achieve good saturation and avoid flare without using hoods. They are only a physical barrier, not a magic device, and there are many other things one can use to create the same barrier.</p>

[alec_myers]

<p>Also lens hoods make the lens look bigger and therefore more bitchin', the better to impress bystanders.</p>

<p>Just saying.</p>

<p> </p>

[mjferron]

<blockquote>

<p>"Also lens hoods make the lens look bigger and therefore more bitchin', the better to impress bystanders."<br>

Maybe Alec but most often I don't want bystanders to notice me taking pictures. Often it's better to fly under the radar.</p>

</blockquote>

[john_robison3]

<p>David Henderson has it as far as hoods effectiveness. Often, a well placed hand (not in frame) to shade the front of the lens, will increase contrast and control flare and ghosting. I have very few modern multicoated lenses and when I shoot with my vintage equipment keeping direct sunlight off the front element can be very important. You will notice that on movie sets the cameras often have long, adjustable bellows type hoods. These are used I suppose because controling flare is even more important in motion picture filming.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Matthijs. I looked around the web to find evidence of testing and numbers to prove the testing. I did not find much to either prove or disprove your point. There were general statements like hoods provide better color and contrast in certain situations. I guess mostly while shooting into the direct sun. I shoot a lot of indoor swimming competition and I do think hood helps because the ceiling light comes from so many different directions. My guess is that most of the time where the light is even and not generating flare it may not make much difference. My guess also is that a hood probably helps in a studio or camera mounted flash to keep stray, non-directional light off the lens. But as I said a couple of time, being a former R&D Director who likes hard evidence sans that I am just guessing. </p>

[jim_rais]

<p align="justify">It's hard to say if a lens hood is effective or not. I think it depends on the quality of the light, the coating of the lens and the angle where the rays struck the lens. Example below shows a nasty harsh low angled winterlight condition. I don't think any hood can save the image from flare, glare or internal reflections in such case. Image taken with 400D + EF 24/2.8 + UV filter, with no hood. The chromatic reflection could be from the reflection of the filter, or else from the lens itself. This kind of reflection is annoying. To be honest I expected worse image than this, but turned out that the contrast is no less than in any other normal case, meaning that the coating of the lens (and or the filter) isn't that bad at all.</p><div></div>

[jphotog]

<p>I have seen other tests where the hood makes a huge difference. It probably depends a lot on the direction of the light. I also agree with the posts above regarding protection. I fell and the my lens hit the ground. The hood cracked and I had to get a new hood, but my 17-35mm survived without a single scratch.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Thanks gentlemen!</p>

<p>My summary of your posts would be:</p>

<p>1. The better the lens the less it needs a hood.</p>

<p>2. In very harsh conditions you need to prevent stray light falling into your lens, this can be done with a hood or any other nearby device or shade.</p>

<p>3. Hoods are a way of making your lens look bigger (that's mostly bad) and a way of protecting your lens from frontal impact (that's good).</p>

<p>In all it has changed my stance on hoods slightly (I'd use them once or twice a year) because I think I'll use them a little more in the future during light rain or other circumstances in which a little extra protection would come in handy.</p>

<p>The rest of the time I'll be the rebel I always was and leave the hood at home.</p>

<p>Thanks again, Matthijs.</p>

<p>Post Scriptum: @Jim Rais, is that in The Netherlands? (Like Gouda or so?) If not then it's a place that could fool any dutchman into thinking it was home...</p>

 

[starvy]

<p>if you are close to the sun and pointing at it, the hood would make a difference with any lens. with older lenses, flare is more of a problem because of lens architecture and coating. however, flare can also add a touch of elegance is used properly.</p>

<p>modern construction of lenses is very good if you are buying any brand from mid price to upwards or any leitz or zeiss glass, whatever the price. dp hoods often have less of an impact. for the amateur, it is often nice to put on a hood on your lens as other totally clueless beings around you tend to think that you know a lot more about photography than them!</p>

[jim_rais]

<p>Matthijs, you can't miss the typical Dutch homely scene :-) Well observed: it's Haarlemmerstraat in Leiden.</p>