To hood or not to hood?

[zuiko85]

Hood? Yes, if I can but I have some oddball lenses that there is no practical way to employ a hood. When necessary I can often shade the lens with my hand.

 

[shimokita]

I don't use hoods... just something else to carry and fiddle with... I also do a lot of winter shoots with the camera under the jacket when not taking photos... when using Lee Seven5 filters a hood is not part of the kit...

The one exception is the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH with built-in hood... but even then it's not always extended...

 

[02Pilot]

Depends on how much I'm concerned about the overall size of the rig and what lens I'm working with. I've got hoods for most everything, but very few are always used - the CV 21/4 gets the giant rectangular LH-1 hood, anything with an original hood that accepts Series filters (Komura 35/3.5, Nikkor 85/2 and 135/3.5) stays on. The rest are just generic ebay aluminum pieces, except for oddballs like the original Elmar, that get mounted if I feel like it.

 

[Pál_K]

Both for flare and protection I always try to get a hood for lenses I buy.

Only exception is for my little rangefinders like QL17 GIII, Hi-Matic 7sII, and Olympus 35RC.

I was not totally happy with the huge petal hood on the Fuji X 23/1.4, but I got it. It intrudes into the OVF a bit much, but I can switch to EVF.

 

[splitimageview]

Short hoods for protection but not for flare. I rather like flare.

 

[dof]

I use a hood on every lens. Made a decision to go this route in the late 90's.

Have been thinking lately though that I should try not using one on my Hasselblad 80mm Planar C lens. I used to get a lovely softness in some of my images from that lens and have begun to wonder if veiling flare is the reason.

 

[tunalegs]

On uncoated and some single-coated lenses yes. Otherwise pretty much never, one exception being the M42 Schneider Xenon I use, as the front element has almost no built-in shading/protection from the barrel. The other exception being misty, or rainy days, to help keep droplets off the glass.

 

[vnukov_pk]

I try to use hoods, however if I carry a camera in my casual bag, I may take the hood of, as it sometimes gets in the way.

 

[farlymac]

If it takes a hood, I'll use one, but some of my lenses are so deep set they really don't require it (a lot of my old fixed-lens rangefinders are like that, and some 50/2 types).


PF

 

[Beemermark]

Being old school (born before coatings) I believe a hood hurts nothing and is the greatest, cheapest benefit available to improve a lens. There is absolutely no downside to not using a hood. Saying that I seem to forget the hood 75% of time. The front element is recessed enough on a lot of lenses that you can get by without a hood. But when I read people complaining about flare from side lighting (like on the newest 50mm Summicron) I really wonder if they ever used a hood.

 

[WJJ3]

I prefer to use a hood in most cases. They keep my lenses protected from objects, snow, rain, my fingers, etc, as well as blocking stray light.

I'm not a huge fan of screw on hoods, prefer to use a bayonet hood, but many of my lenses only use screw on, so I use them where needed.

There is a limit on how big is acceptable with hoods. For example when I got my MEM, it came with the 12575, which is just silly to use on the wonderfully compact MEM. Fortunately the compact ITOOY fits and works great, so I use that.

One lens I don't use a hood on is my LTM W-NIKKOR 3.5cm f2.5. It is so small I don't want to detract from that. Also the front element is recessed far enough that I don't worry about it getting banged or finger prints.

 

[mystichobo]

I use a hood on my uncoated Elmars (9cm and 5cm), but I normally try others without a hood first and then add one if I start seeing flaring issues.

 

[raydm6]

I have and use dedicated hoods for my lenses. The only time I don't use one is if I don't have one for one of my 35mm folders.

 

[robert blu]

Most of times yes to add an extra protection as Vince explained in his post (#6).

I like in the cold months to keep my camera under my coat and the hood protect the lens from rubbing against it. Or sometimes when I put the camera in my bag but I like to have the possibility to take out and shoot without screwing or attaching it.

I do not use it on my Summaron 28/5.6 because the front lens is very recessed.

I'm not concerned so much about improvement in imaege quality, I dare to say oft I love flare 🙂

 

[leicapixie]

I use hood(same one) on my 50mm Collapsible Summicron and 35mm Goggle-Summaron.
The 135mm Tele-Elmar which seldom flares unlike the 1st two..
My Takumars seldom need a hood but flare easily seen in SLR viewfinder..
Nikon Nikkors all without hoods, even more flare prone 105mm f2.5.
My Minolta Rokkor lenses exhibit almost identical flare to Leitz lenses...
Rolleiflex Tessar has hood.

The Minoltas wait for warmer weather as cheap battery not work in sub-sub zero..
Come warmer weather we'll see what they do!
28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 35mm~75mm, 80~200mm...All Minolta.

 

[Pentode]

I almost always use a hood.
Sometimes I also wear a hoodie.

 

[retinax]

I voted "all" although I don't put a hood on some lenses where the front element is deeply recessed, so the hood is practically built in, and some lenses for which I don't have one, yet. Also the phone unfortunately doesn't take a hood. And I don't have filters in all sizes, so I might use step-up rings and then have no hood that works when using a filter, but I don't do that much.
There's simply no downside to using a hood, except insignificantly more bulk, and all the benefits mentioned here.

 

[Dogman]

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. If there's a misty rain, I'll always use a hood to keep the drops from the front element. I don't worry too much about flare with prime lenses but I'll almost always use a hood with zooms. And I never use a hood indoors.

 

[retinax]

Why no hood indoors? Usually you have more light sources that could induce flare. And the ratio of flare-inducing light to intentional-exposure-light remains the same, no matter the absolute intensity of the light. After all, we have to increase exposure time, aperture (or on digital, ISO) to get the exposure the film wants. Exposure with flare is increased along with that of the wanted light. In fact, we'll likely use wide apertures that are more susceptible to flare.

 

[presspass]

A hood, and a UV filter, on every lens. When I need them quickly and the weather isn't cooperating or at the scene of an event that can have environmental damage - fires are the most common - I don't want to take the time to remove a lens cap, screw a UV filter on, and then install a hood. I realize most people don't have these time constraints, but I would rather get the shot as safely as I can than sit in the truck cab installing doodads.