Lens hoods... when to use them?

[vfilby]

Another thread has inspired me to ask a question that has been nagging me for awhile.

I have a lens hood for my EFS lens, a floppy rubber pie-platish looking thing. I have heard here that they can help protect the lens against accidental bumps, and they certainly to make the righ look alittle more professional; but optically speaking, when should I be using the lens hood and when should I be taking it off.

Vince

[Jesper]

When to use the hood (http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Lenshood): Always! Besides protecting your lens against accidental bumping, it helps against flare (http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Flare).

[sGu]

my hood is on all the time whenever i use the lens. reason? see above

[vfilby]

That seems to make sense to me. I guess the real reason why I take mine off is because it is soft rubber and I am worried about it getting deformed and obscuring part of the photo.

Also the hood I ahve for the 18-55 is a screw on jobby that is a bit irritating. My minolta SLR as a clip on hood that could be reversed and take on with ease. IT clipped into ridges on the outside of the lens.

Vince

[elfyrulz]

whats a good lens hood for 17-40mm f/4L?

[psk4363]

Always use a lens hood - both on D-SLR and film SLRs - for the reasons outlined above.

Elfyrulz - the one that came with the lens!

Cheers,
Barry

[elfyrulz]

Always use a lens hood - both on D-SLR and film SLRs - for the reasons outlined above.

Elfyrulz - the one that came with the lens!

Cheers,
Barry

lol.. I didnt know it has a lens hood included. :shock: cant wait when my 17-40mm f/4L arrive soon.

[vfilby]

Do the Canon hoods snap in place? The one I have is just a generic screw-on one. If I got the ew-60c how would it fit onto the 18-55?

Vince

[psk4363]

All my lens hoods are a bayonet-type fit - small twist and they lock into place.

Barry

[vfilby]

With the bayonet mounts can you put the hood on and take it off without affecting the lens cap? The hood I have screws onto the filter thread, then the lens cap clips onto the threads on the hood. The canon hood may rid me of this annoyance.

Vince

[Ebbz]

whats a good lens hood for 17-40mm f/4L?

The EF 17-40 comes with a lens hood.

Rick

[steven]

The canon hood do not interfear with the lens cap.

Though some of them are so long that it is dificult to get the lens cap off after you have the hood on :shock:

[psk4363]

You can keep the lens cap on when taking the hood both on or off. I store my lenses with the lens hoods on.

Barry :wink:

[vfilby]

Thanks for all your replies people.

Vince

[slin100]

The stock EW-83E hood for the 17-40 is virtually useless when used in conjunction with a 10D/300D. A popular substitute is the EW-83DII, which is the stock hood for the 24/1.4L. It's bit hard to find though. I got mine through B&H, although I had to wait a fair bit for one to show up.

[vfilby]

Why is it useless? Because of the 1.6 mult/crop factor?

Vince

[DaveG]

Why is it useless? Because of the 1.6 mult/crop factor?

Vince Although this isn't exactly on point let me put it this way. I put the lens hood from my 70-200 f2.8 on my 16-35 f2.8 (on a Canon 10D) and the hood only vignetted when I got it down to around 20-21 mm. So yes it has to do with the crop factor but also the reality that the lens hood is still way too short for the full frame focal length. Still, as I said on another thread today, any hood is better than none.

[KennyG]

Canon hoods are also reversible. Great for transportation.

I never use any lens without a hood, indoors or out.

[droosan]

A hood screwed onto the filter thread of a lens whose front element floats while focusing, is a BAD THING. (eg, 50/1.4, and most cheap zooms) Bonk a table with the hood and your lens is totaled. The voice of experience...

I'd get the Canon hood designed for the lens and leave it on the lens, usually I don't bother with a cap, so it's ready to get the next shot.

[vfilby]

Thanks again all, if I see a proper hood I will pick one up.

Vince

[theoldmoose]

There is at least one well-known time to leave the hood off: when you are taking flash pictures with the buit-in flash. Most hoods will partially shade the subject from the flash (some long lenses will too, read the manual that came with the lens).

Also, consider what happens when you put a filter on some lenses that are normally deeply recessed on the front: you may pretty well make the hood useless, because direct light may fall on the filter now, causing ghosts and flares.

Two lines of defense for this: multi-coated filters, and using your (or an assistant's) hand or convenient piece of cardboard, etc. to shade the lens front during the snap.

[piku]

Also, consider what happens when you put a filter on some lenses that are normally deeply recessed on the front: you may pretty well make the hood useless, because direct light may fall on the filter now, causing ghosts and flares.

i got a tamron 28-75 recently, and it came w/ a hood. also got a multi-coated uv filter for it from calumet ($25 woah). besides not having the hood when using the built-in flash, is having the hood on this particular lens (w/ a filter) acceptable, or should i just have the filter and thats it??? also, i noticed that this particular hood can be stowed away on the lens itself--anyone else do this on a lens that already have a filter???

TIA

[vfilby]

theldmoose: Yeah I learned that the hard way with my old g3. THe shadow from the lens was always getting in the way.

I would like think everyone for the help and comments provided.

Cheers,

Vince

[theoldmoose]

piku,

most lenses are designed so that using a hood with a filter is a non-interference issue. In other words, putting the hood on normally does not interfere with access to the filter threads, but it may be more difficult to mount/unmount a filter with the hood in place, just because it's harder to get your fingers around the filter to screw/unscrew it.

That said, I believe that the 50mm f1.8 MkII may be an exception, of sorts. Apparently, the hood for that lens requires some kind of hood adapter mount, which I believe threads onto the lens filter threads. I have been checking the local stores regularly for the hood, and they've always been out of stock, so I've not actually seen one, so far. It may actually be a non-issue.

Some folks don't bother with a hood for the 50mm MkII, because the front lens element is so deeply recessed. But, if you put a filter on the front, then a hood, or at least getting in the habit of shading the front of the lens with something when taking shots in direct light, would be needed to become standard operating procedure.

[ant]

i have a canon 90-300 lense that i was given and i use it on my 300D often, and was wondering wat lense hood to get for it, if one is available. also is it worth it? Thanks, ant.

[Spatch]

Slight change of topic but I hope someone can help. I recently bought a 70-200 F2.8L second hand. It did not come with a lens hood. Can anyone advise if this lens was originally supplied with a hood as the place I bought it from are saying that they do not think it was.

Cheers.
Mark.

[Jonny]

Slight change of topic but I hope someone can help. I recently bought a 70-200 F2.8L second hand. It did not come with a lens hood. Can anyone advise if this lens was originally supplied with a hood as the place I bought it from are saying that they do not think it was.

Cheers.
Mark.

My 70-200 f2.8L came with a hood, in fact i think all L lenses come with hoods. Mine had a super case and hood in the box.

Back on thread though, i always use a hood for protection but sometimes have to remove when using a polarizer as you need to get to the thing to turn it!!

[bootm]

I am having the same problem as vfilby with the EW-60C for the Canon 18-55mm USM lens w/ my 20D. I have a UV filter on, but that shouldn't be in the way. (I did try without the filter as well though) The EW-60C is supposed to be for the Canon 28-80mm USM lens, but I guess Canon believes the 18-55mm lens is exactly the same size. For myself, the hood does not rotate easy and feels like you have to force it. I did get it on and off, but it took me about 5 minutes because I didn't want to mess up the lens by rotating it as well. I also did this in manual focus mode since there is no way to put it on without rotating the lens a little too. I thought it might just be that hood being slightly warped or something, so I took it back and came home with a brand new one, which I had the same problem with. Anyone else other than us having this problem. Thanks.

[KevC]

Okay... so if I do buy a Drebel, I should invest in a lens hood too? I don't have one... and I'm guessing the Drebel kit doesn't either... hmm. I don't plan on buying anything else soon... but on my list is a flash, and the 50mm 1.8 lens... but that's at least a few months away.

[donlavange]

I wish the lens mfgs would just add the proper hood to the lens price, which they seem to do as you get to higher end glass. I just got the 100 f2.8 macro which came w/o a hood. I felt naked w/o it. Ordered it from B & H and it is at home while I am in Columbus, OH with my stuff.

[eosster]

I wish the lens mfgs would just add the proper hood to the lens price, which they seem to do as you get to higher end glass. I just got the 100 f2.8 macro which came w/o a hood. I felt naked w/o it. Ordered it from B & H and it is at home while I am in Columbus, OH with my stuff.
I totally agree....