To hood or not to hood?

[Shac]

Thanks for your replies. I understand personal preference is probably the main factor - as I said I was simply curious.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Always a hood, to protect the lens. I don't think that a hood improves the quality of the image very much. Cartier-Bresson never used a hood AFAIK.

Erik.

 

[Bill Clark]

Always on wide angle lenses.

I own a telephoto that has a fairly large hood. It is always on.

Even on my 135 I use a hood.

 

[jcb4718]

You raise an interesting subject, Erik. I can't think of any Cartier-Bresson photos where the subject was backlit and the light also fell on Bresson. For example, if you Google this Bresson photograph:

Henri Cartier-Bresson. Simiane-la-Rotonde, France. 1969.

you can see that the subjects on the wall are backlit but Cartier-Bresson is in the shade.

My view is that if you don't have a hood you must make these kinds of intuitive decisions about where it is OK to stand to take the photo.

 

[seany65]

Do other members find it difficult to get metal hoods that are matt black on the inside, or is that a feature of the cheapies I buy?

I have finally found a ebay seller that sells hoods that are matt on the inside (and not just as "shiny" on the outside), although the 72mm isn't as good in this regard.

 

[hap]

I usually use hoods, mostly of the cheap screw-in type sold by the eBay seller "heavystar". I just bought a bunch of sizes all at once and now I'm all set hood-wise.

I mainly use them for protection. I often carry more than one camera and can't always pay perfect attention as to whether or not it is bumping into something or someone. Hoods are a must.
They also they help with strong side-light which can cause some nasty veiling flare on my older lenses. You still get flare of course, no magic bullet there, but less of it.

sure you are not "hood winked" 🙂

 

[Joosep]

I used to always use hoods. But then something happened in my head and now I dont at all on any lenses. I guess they were just one more thing to carry around. I dont carry any bags with me, so every cubic inch/cm is accounted for.

But I do have an UV on at all times on all my lenses. Just as insurance.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I use a hood if I have one for the lens. I'll admit I don't have hoods for all my lenses.

 

[peterm1]

I will often use hoods on my lenses. And not only because some lenses are prone to flare more than others. I often use them simply because I know that if there is a hood on the lens it offers protection from bumps and bangs, especially to filter rings and threads. Even when the period correct hood came with a lens when I buy it, especially when the hood is rare I will keep that hood and then buy a cheap $5 aftermarket one from China to actually use in the field.
So you might say that not only do I use a hood to protect the lens, I then use another hood to protect the hood. Or as the Irish might say "To be sure, to be sure" 🙂
But there is no truth in the rumor that I wear braces and a belt on my trousers for the same reason. 🙂

 

[Mudman]

I always use a hood if I have one. Dropped a lens on assignment once. Lenshood broke, lens didn't. I superglued the hood back together about 3 years ago now, still works!

 

[markjwyatt]

I use hoods when I have ones that fit particular lenses, especially in the sun. In many cases I do not have a hood that fits or is appropriate.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Hoods are a pain in the neck, so I avoid them when possible.
The collapsible rubber ones are the least inconvenient type.

Chris

 

[kshapero]

Hoods are a pain in the neck, so I avoid them when possible.
The collapsible rubber ones are the least inconvenient type.

Chris

hate those rubber ones

 

[tarasi]

Always a hood, to protect the lens. I don't think that a hood improves the quality of the image very much. Cartier-Bresson never used a hood AFAIK.

Erik.

Not really true:

 

[CMur12]

hate those rubber ones

Unfortunately, the rubber ones are typically the most effective for normal lenses in 35mm format. The only metal after-market hoods that I have been able to find are quite short.

An advantage of most rubber hoods is that, when collapsed, you can use the normal lens cap.

- Murray

 

[Cyriljay]

I prefer to use a lens hood as it gives me good control in all lighting situations especially if I am shooting against the light, so I have no worries for quick actions.
This is only a guideline for my own shooting and it works for me most of the time.

 

[Hari]

for those who use metal hoods, you can leave
them on and operational if you obtain the
correct size snap-cap for the hood's diameter

 

[Bill Blackwell]

This seems to me like a completely senseless poll! I can't imagine any situation where you wouldn't want to use a shade! Even artificial lighting sources can cause flair a shade could prevent under certain conditions.

 

[superultramega]

Was previously only using uv filters but had a few photos where the filter produced flare. Now I’m proponent of filter and hood. Double-ly protected, or redundant?

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Like many things it's easier to use a hood than it is to obsess about it one way or the other.

Depending on the presence/absence/quality of the lens coatings, using a hood will:
1. Absolutely improve the quality of the photo
2. Might improve the quality of the photo
3. Won't hurt the photo at all

Everybody is going to keep doing what they have been doing the last 20 years anyway, because they have been happy doing that, whether it made scientific optical sense or not.