50mm f1.8 mkII - do i need a hood?

[saichuen]

hi guys..

i just was wondering if anyone in here can give me some advices on whether if it is necessary to use a hood for the 50mm f1.8 mkII lens?

thanks in advance.

:-)

[defordphoto]

Removed by RFMSports

[robertwgross]

For an inexpensive lens, I would apply an inexpensive hood (like one of those $5 rubber ones). For an expensive lens, like an L lens, I would apply the one that comes with the lens.

---Bob Gross---

[drisley]

I bought a ES-62 hood for mine.
It makes the lens look cool, and isnt that what it's about?
Actually, I like the lens protection it offers, and the flare protection it offers in rare instances.
Also it does make the lens look a little more professional.
I feel a little "inadequate" using that little plastic 50F1.8II sometimes.
I think the lens with hood instills a little more confidence in your subjects than just the dinky fifty. I have to tell people, "no really, it's a VERY good lens, not a toy" :lol:

[Nolz]

The glass is recessed quite deep into the lens and i cant say ive had experiences where i thought i would NEED a lens hood for the little fella.....if i did come across one cheap i'd certainly pick it up. As for needing it?....i dont think so. That being said, it wouldnt go astray :) just not imperative that you get one.

[mdude85]

I don't use one but then again I come from the "lens hoods are atrociously priced, why would anyone purchase one?" school of thought.

[kufel]

If your EOS10D wit 70-200 IS attached to it lost the shoulder strap and rolled in the red sticky mud (like mine did) without the hood (BTW: 70-200 IS comes with it), you would've changed your attitude realy quickly... My glass got only a few muddy spots and I cleaned it very easily, try the 77mm in diameter covered with mud if I did not have the hood....