MikeL
Go Fish
I lost my hood when I was a baby, so I don’t see the benefits of a hood. Flare happens.
To hood or not to hood?
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 102
- Views 7K
ruby.monkey
Veteran
All my lenses have an unholy attraction for concrete posts and sharp corners. Lens hoods make an excellent bumper.
kshapero
South Florida Man
You must be the guy who voted that you were hoodlum. Sweet.😱
steveyork
Well-known
Never use a hood unless it's integrated. They're too fiddle. Rarely do I care about flare. I just do this for fun. Flare too can be interesting, or not. Most of my lenses are multicoated anyway.
MikeL
Go Fish
Wasn’t me!
And like Steve, I’m not a professional, so okay with flare and even appreciate sometimes. The only downside of a rangefinder is you don’t get a preview of it.
jjcha
Established
I didn't realize they made a hood for the 27mm, thanks for bringing that up.
I have the one for my X100F and it's great, except that the mechanism for attaching the hood to the lens is in two pieces. One is a filter-like ring that you screw on to the filter threads, that's fine. Then you attach the actual hood to that ring, and screw in two tiny screws on the sides of the hood.
See the image here -- I'm referring to the two tiny screws on the bottom of this image and the tiny screw holes you can see on the actual sides of the hood on the lower right of the image.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0026/2474/9627/products/27mmsquarehood_black_1080x.jpg?v=1580129480
Those tiny screws are the only thing holding the actual hood onto the filter-like ring to the left. If you're not careful, you can either (1) screw in too tight and strip the threads or (2) screw in too loose and allow the hood to rotate/slip off. I've done both and the former sucks.
But I think if you're careful it's great. Because of this tiny screw mechanism taking the hood on and off takes time and care with a little screwdriver, which is fine and dandy the first time you do it, but gets annoying if, for example, you want to take the hood off every time before you pack the camera/lens away in a bag.
Greg Maslak
Well-known
Thank you, ruby.monkey and jjcha for your quick reviews of the Squarehood for Fuji. It does indeed sound a bit fussy and not likely a big improvement over going without.
That's one of the reasons I like this forum so much. You can count on knowledgable answers to almost any query. I really appreciate that. Thanks again.
That's one of the reasons I like this forum so much. You can count on knowledgable answers to almost any query. I really appreciate that. Thanks again.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
I always use a lens hood for one simple reason, I think they look cool. Metal hoods are the best, vented is all the better; square is sublime.
The smallest lens hood I’ve ever used was the one that came with the Fujifilm Klasse. If it fell off it might take one a day or two to notice it was gone.
The one lens hood I didn’t care for was on the Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm F1.4. It was just too damn big; about the same size as the lens itself. I was tempted to cut about ¾ of an inch off the front.
All the best,
Mike
The smallest lens hood I’ve ever used was the one that came with the Fujifilm Klasse. If it fell off it might take one a day or two to notice it was gone.
The one lens hood I didn’t care for was on the Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm F1.4. It was just too damn big; about the same size as the lens itself. I was tempted to cut about ¾ of an inch off the front.
All the best,
Mike
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Yes, on all my lenses except a Nikkor 50mm f3.5 (LTM) only because I have no idea of the hood that would fit this lens. So, if anyone can advise I would appreciate it so that all my lenses have hoods.
Richard G
Veteran
My first two lenses had the hood reversed to put on the cap. Great Leitz design. My second most recent lens, the Summaron-M, has a glorious hood, very valuable and bulky and with the deep set front element, generally unnecessary so I don’t use it. My most recent lens is the 35 Summilux with a series VII filter in the hood. For light sources in frame there is no easier way to remove the filter than just removing the hood. Same with the Fuji X100. Otherwise I have hoods and filters on nearly all lenses every time.
Richard G
Veteran
An old Rolleiflex (mine an Automat with 75 Xenar) absolutely needs the hood.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
I never use a hood, I just avoid aiming at the sun.
ktmrider
Well-known
Hoods on everything just like my cars all have bumpers. Can't hurt and might help.
icebear
Veteran
I use hoods on ALL my lenese ALL the time.
Why wouldn't I ?!
I use multiple lenses and when changing lenses I put them down on a table front element down or I put them in my bag. The hoods keeps the front element from touching the below surface. I the rare case I bump into anything the hood will hopefully give some protection.
People are arguing endlessly about properties and resolution of lenses and the dynamic range of sensors and they don't care to use the cheapest and most useful tool to maximize inherent contrast at time of exposure? Loss of image quality happens way before visible flare. If you have a chance to max out IQ then do it. I always have to hold back not to smack people sporting a huge DSLR and an even bigger autofocus zoom lens in front of it and they carry the hood in reverse attached to the lens. How lazy and stupid can you be?!:bang:
Rant over😀
Why wouldn't I ?!
I use multiple lenses and when changing lenses I put them down on a table front element down or I put them in my bag. The hoods keeps the front element from touching the below surface. I the rare case I bump into anything the hood will hopefully give some protection.
People are arguing endlessly about properties and resolution of lenses and the dynamic range of sensors and they don't care to use the cheapest and most useful tool to maximize inherent contrast at time of exposure? Loss of image quality happens way before visible flare. If you have a chance to max out IQ then do it. I always have to hold back not to smack people sporting a huge DSLR and an even bigger autofocus zoom lens in front of it and they carry the hood in reverse attached to the lens. How lazy and stupid can you be?!:bang:
Rant over😀
retinax
Well-known
Exactly! I know the feeling, wanting to smack the DSLR users... sometimes they even block their fingers from the zoom ring!
giganova
Well-known
Because hoods make lenses even bigger, they are not bumpers because chances are that the obstacle wound't have hit your lens without the large hood, they make changing filters cumbersome, they are not needed in most situations unless you shoot against the light, and if you do, flares can be thing of beauty. 😀
I recently met a Magnum photographer who had two cameras around his neck that were severely banged up, had lost all their paint, he used no hood, not even a protective filter ... and that guy's photos are amazing and have been published all over the world. I think that makes my point.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Back in 2004 when my dual range Summicron was dropped on a marble floor in Iraq, the only reason the lens survived is because of the Leica hood that was on it. The floor was ok too.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
back alley
IMAGES
i hate petal hoods and use them as little as possible...
James24
Well-known
I keep buying hoods and I keep not using them. Hoods make lenses bigger, and uglier, and get in the way. As has previously been said, the best hoods are fixed to the lens ...50mm Summilux ASPH and Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS come immediately to mind. You can't leave home without them, and they're easy to use and tuck away when not in use.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
I've found such integral hoods to be close to useless unless they have a way to be locked out when extended.
Similar threads
