kshapero
South Florida Man
How many of us use a lens hood? All the time, never, or just certain times? Why? Flare? Protection of your glass, etc.?
To hood or not to hood?
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 699
oftheherd
Veteran
Funny, I normally use it on my Super Press 23 on the 100mm lens. That's just because it came with one. I seldom use them elsewhere, but know it would often help. When I know I may be in trouble, I often try to shade with my hands or a hat.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Yes, just about all the time.
Bill58
Native Texan
Always--for all of the above reasons.
M
Mafufo Acilu
Guest
Always 100% on all my lenses
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Nearly always- I will sometimes forego a hood indoors, if the lens needs one screwed in or stuck on (thinking mainly about the 40 'cron here) and my G21 has no hood, but doesn't seem to need one. Flare is my main reason.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Always. It provides much better contrast, I have found, adds physical protection to the lens, and looks cool. I found a great product made by Op/tech called a Hood Hat that provides tremendous extra protection to the lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=197129&is=REG
The mini-version fits best on RF lenses.
/T
The mini-version fits best on RF lenses.
/T
raid
Dad Photographer
I always use a hood. There is no negative result from using hood and there are only positives.
What would be shipping cost for an item that costs $7.95?
"I found a great product made by Op/tech called a Hood Hat that provides tremendous extra protection to the lens"
What would be shipping cost for an item that costs $7.95?
"I found a great product made by Op/tech called a Hood Hat that provides tremendous extra protection to the lens"
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
raid said:
Raid,
I can never buy just one item from B&H. 😀 Pretty soon after I go to the site I have enough items in my cart that shipping becomes irrelevant. They always have nice films on special if you don't want to spend too much money to make the shipping cost more palatable. But according to the B&H web site, shipping is $4.95 for that one $7.95 item, so it might not be worth buying solo.
/T
raid
Dad Photographer
Tuolumne said:
Actually, the cost of $4.95 is not bad at all when compared to what other stores charge for shipping. I used to buy stuff from B&H each time for $200-$400, but I have slowed down since I switched to rangefinder photography.
Raid
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Yes preferably always
kshapero
South Florida Man
Tuolumne said:
Mini GAS, I ordered one.
Xmas
Veteran
A hood is cheaper then a new lens after your drop a camera and it lands on the lens. They can be bent back into shape, or framed and mounted like a trophy.
Noel
Noel
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Except when I'm in an insanely tearing hurry, which mercifully happens seldom. A hood also keeps fingers off the front element of a lens, which is important to one who uses no image degrading "protective" filter.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
Hood & UV filter on all lenses for protection. (I also don't use image degrading "protective" filters. 😉 )
R
ray_g
Guest
One of the reasons I like RF's and RF lenses is that they are small. I dislike most hoods for this reason. Even the collapsible 50 summicron becomes "big" when you attach a 12585 hood. I use them when there are strong light sources, or other times I feel them necessary. I guess that is why I prefer lenses with retractable hoods.
The one exception is the small square hood on the 35 summicron. I don't mind it as much.
I tend to use filters more. Especially on old lenses with soft coatings. And in dusty surroundings. Except when I think they would cause flare.
I guess the bottom line, for me, is that just like anything, they have their purpose, and I use them based on that.
The one exception is the small square hood on the 35 summicron. I don't mind it as much.
I tend to use filters more. Especially on old lenses with soft coatings. And in dusty surroundings. Except when I think they would cause flare.
I guess the bottom line, for me, is that just like anything, they have their purpose, and I use them based on that.
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
I knock into things. Much rather have the lens hood take the knock rather than the front element!
Also I can't stand those reflections I too often get from a front filter.
The ONLY time I was glad there was a filter on a lens was when a camel licked the front of a Nikon 35-70 zoom (72mm objective) in Egypt!
Also I can't stand those reflections I too often get from a front filter.
The ONLY time I was glad there was a filter on a lens was when a camel licked the front of a Nikon 35-70 zoom (72mm objective) in Egypt!
fishtek
Don
Yup! Always! Aside from the flare protection, there's always the opportunity for an accidental collision with something, and I'd rather that the hood take the brunt of the impact. It also prevents me from getting a finger in front of the wide lenses.
Regards!
Don
Regards!
Don
Rico
Well-known
Hoods are nice in theory but, in practice, the added bulk makes them a pain. I prefer a sleeker profile: easier navigation out of bags, around corners, and in my hand. The bare lens is friendlier on the street, too. The only hood I liked was the Hassy for CZ Planar 80 (plastic, square, bayonet, small).
R
ruben
Guest
I have as many hoods as lenses.
No lens without hood even when resting at the shelf.
And of course, metal hoods only, surrounded by a fitting piece of bicycle tyre, painted and shining in black with any liquid shoe brightener.
Cheers,
Ruben
No lens without hood even when resting at the shelf.
And of course, metal hoods only, surrounded by a fitting piece of bicycle tyre, painted and shining in black with any liquid shoe brightener.
Cheers,
Ruben
