When to use the lens hood?

[mcneguy]

The purpose of the lens hood is to remove stray light right? If that is the case, do you only use the hood in extremely bright sunshine? If you use it all the time, what is the harm?

[Jesper]

There's no harm if you use it all the time, except when you're using the built-in flash of your camera, the hood might get in the way and cause a strange shadow.

Except for the sun, other light sources can also cause stray light. I'm always using the lens hoods on my lenses.

[DaveG]

The purpose of the lens hood is to remove stray light right? If that is the case, do you only use the hood in extremely bright sunshine? If you use it all the time, what is the harm?

If you've got one, use one. It can't hurt, should protect your lens, and may actually do what it's meant to.

I shot an inside wedding portrait a couple of years ago, and I didn't bother with the lens hood. But there was a window, out of the shot and about 20 degrees behind the subject. When I got the proofs I immediately saw that I had lost a lot of contrast, and it was flare caused by the light from that window.

A lot of people think that flare is when you see all those multiple reflections in your shot, but the lack of contrast is much more common. Had I used the hood I have no doubt that I would have gotten a much better result.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Stray light can have detremental effects in any situation.. it does not need to be flare from the sun.. yes it is incremental.. ie flare is the worse case.. but the hood can be helping in almost any condition to some degree.

I use a hood 100% of the time.

[Ballen Photo]

I keep my lens hoods on the lens all the time and not just for stray light either. The lens hood gives added protection, just like a bumper on a car. Also helps to make the shots a bit more contrasty, which I like.
........Bruce

[Mills]

I, too, use my hoods all of the time.

[Scottes]

Always.

[Tapeman]

I live in the hood. :D

[Ballen Photo]

I live in the hood. :D

Who's? LOL!
-Bruce

[Canuck]

Agree, all the time to prevent excess light.

[CoolToolGuy]

I use mine almost all the time, except when I use a polarizer. Sometimes I use the polarizer for the same purpose. :D

[DaveG]

I use mine almost all the time, except when I use a polarizer. Sometimes I use the polarizer for the same purpose. :D

Why would you want to have a polarized shot with lower contrast than you could get? Especially if you could fix the problem by just using a lens hood? I'd be afraid that I'd end up with a polarized shot but with flare. Kind of compensating errors.

[CoolToolGuy]

I use mine almost all the time, except when I use a polarizer. Sometimes I use the polarizer for the same purpose. :D

Why would you want to have a polarized shot with lower contrast than you could get? Especially if you could fix the problem by just using a lens hood? I'd be afraid that I'd end up with a polarized shot but with flare. Kind of compensating errors.

I think the polarizer helps quite a bit. No extensive testing done on this, however. But its mostly because it is really difficult to turn the polarizer ring with a hood in place... :roll:

[kahfluie]

I use the hood all the time.

[s00pcan]

hah, my lens hood is a collection of all the useless stepping rings I have.

[timmyquest]

I use mine almost all the time, except when I use a polarizer. Sometimes I use the polarizer for the same purpose. :D

Why would you want to have a polarized shot with lower contrast than you could get? Especially if you could fix the problem by just using a lens hood? I'd be afraid that I'd end up with a polarized shot but with flare. Kind of compensating errors.

I think the polarizer helps quite a bit. No extensive testing done on this, however. But its mostly because it is really difficult to turn the polarizer ring with a hood in place... :roll:

Cant you just turn the camera in circles :-D

[CoolToolGuy]

I use mine almost all the time, except when I use a polarizer. Sometimes I use the polarizer for the same purpose. :D

Why would you want to have a polarized shot with lower contrast than you could get? Especially if you could fix the problem by just using a lens hood? I'd be afraid that I'd end up with a polarized shot but with flare. Kind of compensating errors.

I think the polarizer helps quite a bit. No extensive testing done on this, however. But its mostly because it is really difficult to turn the polarizer ring with a hood in place... :roll:

Cant you just turn the camera in circles :-D

Yea, or just stick a couple of fingers in and turn the glass - plus you get that soft focus effect from the fingerprints for free :!: :shock:

[NILOLIGIST]

Never leave home without it, never shoot without it.

NiL,

[defordphoto]

Always.

[Tom W]

Until I started using a hood, I didn't realize how much contrast can be lost by stray light outside of the image - this is particularly true if you happen to be using a cheap, poorly coated filter (I have a few). I use the hood almost all the time, the exception being that I have not yet acquired one for my 50 mm.

That's for next month's order.

[DaveG]

Until I started using a hood, I didn't realize how much contrast can be lost by stray light outside of the image - this is particularly true if you happen to be using a cheap, poorly coated filter (I have a few). I use the hood almost all the time, the exception being that I have not yet acquired one for my 50 mm.

That's for next month's order.

You might even want to think about getting a bellows lens shade.

I use a Lee bellows shade/hood when I'm doing work that doesn't require a fixed lens shade like sports or news. The Lee is light enough that I wouldn't be concerned about damaging the Canon lenses like I would be with my much heavier Lindahl shade. You also get different adaptors to fit your specific lens' filter ring, so you can use it on everything you own, although super wide angles will be a challenge.

I can extend the hood to just this side of vignetting and that's when it's really working. Regular "it-comes-with-the-lens" hoods - while being better than nothing - are almost a joke when you realize how short they are and how long you can make the bellows shade expand without causing vignetting.

For the person who doesn't use a hood with a polaroid filter this might be a solution as well since there's a lot more room to reach into a lens with a bellows shade.

[Sam North]

I always use a hood and make sure sunlight isn't directly striking the glass. If I'm using a grey grad filter I shade the lens with my hand or a card for insurance.

With the EOS 300D/D-Rebel and 10D, lens hoods could be just a little longer without showing up.

By the way, some EF lenses are sold without hoods - according to Canon they are "optional".

And I thought Canon knew all about the rules of photography...

:roll:


Sam

[DaveG]

And I thought Canon knew all about the rules of photography...

:roll:


Sam

The first rule is to make money, and Canon knows that one.

[CoolToolGuy]

By the way, some EF lenses are sold without hoods - according to Canon they are "optional".

And I thought Canon knew all about the rules of photography...
:roll:
Sam

Basically, the 'L' lenses come with a hood and a case or pouch, they are optional on the rest. Not unreasonable in my mind... :wink:

[skiphoto]

Howdy,

I tried the internal screw lens hood from a local camera store that allows you to turn the lens hood to adjust the polaraizer. PLus you could collapse the hood into itself if not needed. I shoot all watersports and nothing else so a polaraizer is useful for me to shut down glare and increase contrast. The hood I tried was great xcept it had a tendancy to unscrew the filter from the lens in some case or actually make the lens hood fall off!

I would like to keep a filter in place but also like the results with the hood from my L lenses for water glare and am thinking that maybe with a Grad ND filter the problem may be solved..anyone have any thoughts on using the Grad ND vs the POlarizer for watersports?

Cheers

[Mikesht]

I have those rubber collapsable hoods permanantly on my lenses, they are cheap and when you put your lens away you just fold it. Great thing. I use them all the time.

[Jesper]

By the way, some EF lenses are sold without hoods - according to Canon they are "optional".

And I thought Canon knew all about the rules of photography...
:roll:
Sam
Basically, the 'L' lenses come with a hood and a case or pouch, they are optional on the rest. Not unreasonable in my mind... :wink:

But there are also non-L lenses with which the hood is included - for example the new 70-300 DO IS USM (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012902canon70300do.asp) is supposed to come with hood and pouch:
"...The lens comes with a case LP1116 and an exclusive hood ET-65B for shading against unwanted direct light."

[CoolToolGuy]

By the way, some EF lenses are sold without hoods - according to Canon they are "optional".

And I thought Canon knew all about the rules of photography...
:roll:
Sam
Basically, the 'L' lenses come with a hood and a case or pouch, they are optional on the rest. Not unreasonable in my mind... :wink:

But there are also non-L lenses with which the hood is included - for example the new 70-300 DO IS USM (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012902canon70300do.asp) is supposed to come with hood and pouch:
"...The lens comes with a case LP1116 and an exclusive hood ET-65B for shading against unwanted direct light."

I didn't know that, but I did notice that both of the DO lenses have a green stripe where the 'L's would have a red stripe. I couldn't quickly determine whether the 400mm DO comes with the hood, but perhaps Canon considers those high enough in the pecking order to include hoods with them as well.

So, for those of other persuasions (N***n, Olymups (sic)), if the 'L' lenses didn't make your face turn red because you made the wrong choice, the DO lenses will make you green with envy - whattayathink? :wink: :roll: :) :D :lol: