Lens hoods --- Do i really need them on primes?

[bob_jones12]

Like, say, the 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 135/2? The 135/2 comes with

one, but should I bother with lens hoods on the others? What's the

general consensus for this?

[isaac sibson]

I find with the 20 F2.8 the hood is very necessary indeed. On the others I would use them as well. They're inexpensive, they protect the lens from damage, help prevent flare and weigh very little. I'd have them for all the lenses you mention.

[markedwardsmith]

I know some published professional photogs that make a tidy sum of money with Nat'l Geo, Time, US News, as well as stock and calendar. You have probably seen there work 100's of times. These guys most of the time DO NOT use a lens hood. Even on there wide angle lenses.

 

They use there hat!!! It works perfectly well.

 

Now it is far more convienent to have the hood in place most of the time. Also is is easier if you are shooting quickly where you don't want to have to worry about glare.

 

But if you are doing a landscape photo and you are taking your time to make this image then it would be at you discrecion<sp> to use a hood or a hat. The goal would be to monitor the glare/light coming in you lens and make that assessment. I think for most photogs, whether pro or amateur should have a hood on for good unanticipated glare support. An investment that will pay dividends.

 

I don't think that there are any technical (emipirical evidence) reason for using or not using a lens hood for wide angle, just common sense.

[gustavo_friggi]

Zooms are more prone to flare, but it doesn't mean that primes don't suffer them. Like the previous answer said, hoods offer some really good benefits. Canon (original) hoods sometimes are expensive, so you might look at some other brands that fit your primes - just check against vignetting.

[benb]

The 20mm f/2.8 definitely could use a Hood. Under practical situations it doesn't flare unless there is a light in the frame, but I sure wish I had the hood because I have gotten lens flare in a couple pictures where I totally didn't expect it.

 

I haven't bought it cause the hood costs almost as much as a 50mm f/1.8!

 

I have the 50mm and the 85mm f/1.8 as well, neither one of those really seems to need a hood.

[david8]

One other issue to consider is protecting the front lens element..

 

I don't like to use UV filters as protection, since no matter how

good the filter, there is some degredation of optical quality of the

lens system. So, IMO, placing a hood on the lens provides some

extra space between the front element and a random hit of

someone's jacket, or my clumsy hand...

[isaac sibson]

Ben- look second hand.

 

I got my 20 F2.8 for NZ$800 and the hood for NZ$45, both second hand (and mint), which worked out at £270 for the pair. The lens alone second hand would have cost around £350 in the UK.

[carl smith]

You need a lenshood for EVERYTHING. Never any exceptions until your experience tells you otherwise when it might get in the way.

[brett_bainbridge]

Carl nailed it. You should always use a lens hood unless for some reason you can't. Simple as that.

[c_terry]

Only if you want good results !

[canon man]

The consensus syas...use them, buy them, love them. I have used my hat when I simply did not have time. On some lenses they are a pain. Take th 70-200 2.8L. The hood makes the lens huge, and the lens cap is a pain to get on and you must be careful not to drop it onto the element. However I would rather that hood hit the ground than that lens. I have also found them nice as a rest when changing film too. Especially with a lens liek my bazooka. Any time you think there might be flare use them, if anything the benifits both optically and as aprotection device far out weigh any cost.

[daniel flather]

Yes.

[eddie g.]

I've shot with Mamiya 7 80mm prime lens. This is one of the hardest lenses to get flare in it, but I have!! Hood or umbrella keeps the sun out, reduces flare and increases contrast. Also, protects the front of the lens. Filter may add flare, but keeps the dust off the lens.

 

I have made a law for myself to keep the hood on my lenses. Prefer the hard plastic (or metal) over soft rubber because it protects the lens from damages and can also rest the camera on the lens without getting dirt on the lens (see how sports photographers rest the camera down on their big lenses when not using them). Went thru 4 days of shooting at the dusty Death Valley, CA with my Tamron SP 24-135 with only its hard lens hood on (and no filter); still don't know where I put the lens cap, but the front element is still nice and clean. Just needed to blow some dust off it. That's all.

[rca8733]

The only time that I ("RARELY") not use a hood is with a Macro lens. The reason for this, is that most true macro lenses are set far enough back in the barrel, that the barrel itself acts like a hood. If your shooting back lit subjects however, or right angle lighted subjects, I'll put the hood on with a macro. Other than that, I use a hood all the time. It's not that much weight, and why take a chance of getting a flare and spoil what may be the picture of lifetime.