Lense Hoods

[tommykjensen]

This might seem like a really stupid question :confused:

Lense hoods.

I got a few of those for the lenses I bought but I rarely use them. I find them annoying and have yet to see an example of what difference they make.

I always thought they were supposed to be used when shooting more or less directly against the sun but I see other photographers use them all the time.

Can someone illustrate with 2 photos what difference using a hood makes?

[donlavange]

I addition to cutting flare, they go a long way toward protecting the glass itself.

[DaveG]

This might seem like a really stupid question :confused:

Lense hoods.

I got a few of those for the lenses I bought but I rarely use them. I find them annoying and have yet to see an example of what difference they make.

I always thought they were supposed to be used when shooting more or less directly against the sun but I see other photographers use them all the time.

Can someone illustrate with 2 photos what difference using a hood makes?


A good lens hood will protect your lens against flare, and you will read that anywhere. The problem is that flare comes in at least two forms. One type is the "count the lens elements" kind that you see all of the time in movies and TV shows. You also can see it with still lenses when you get the sun or a bright light too close to the lens. With that kind of flare a lens hood's work is self evident. You use one, it flags the light and you don't get flare.

The other kind of flare is more subtle. It's just the wholesale loss of contrast. I did a wedding portrait of a bride a few years ago. The main light was a window behind me, but there was another window to the right and slightly behind the subject, but wasn't in the composition. Direct sunlight was not coming through either window and I didn't use a lens hood of any kind for this shot. The results were very very low in contrast. The image was flat and the only explanation was that the second window caused lens flare.

That second type of lens flare is why I ALWAYS use a lens shade. It is going to help at least some. In situations that are extremely important or where I'm pretty sure that I will get the lens element kind of flare, I use a bellow lens shade that expands to just this side of vignetting. There are times where it's inappropriate to use a bellows shade - say for shooting sports or where I will be using the zoom range a lot - then the lens' shade is the least I can do.

I wish I could show you a shot with the before and after of flare correction but it's usually a case of either fixing it so you don't have a problem, or not fixing it and ONLY having the problem. I haven't had either type of flare in the last few years so I can only speculate that the lens shade has done what it was supposed to do.

[RJSorensen]

This is just my thoughts . . . get out the salt as needed . . . but I think that the colors are better in many shots taken with a hood vs. with out. It blocks our all of the side light/reflections and only gives you what you aim at.

[Chris1le]

I addition to cutting flare, they go a long way toward protecting the glass itself.

I'll second that. I was getting out of my truck the other night And was pulling my camera bag out. Well when the bag got to the edge of the seat it fell over and out came my 10D with 28-135IS lens onto the gravel. Luckily it hit the lens hood first. Unfortunately the hood broke, but I believe it absorbed most of the fall as everything else survived intact save for a few scratches on the left side corner and UV Filter. Yes the UV filter is also on the lens for protection. I'll say they both did their jobs very well that night. Unlike myself. :o Needless to say I always use the included lens hood. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Tommy,

Theoretically (a theory I subscribe to and fully agree with) is that ANY light that enters the front lements at whatever angle that is NOT part of your picture is detrimental to the over all image quality. We can not allways see the differnce as it can be very subtle,. but as mentioned,. there are times that even without "ring flare" we can see just off access bright light totally wash out the image,. even in the viewfinder,. (I was strugggling with this just today as I tried to shoot a ballet from the wings space in my theatre,. Ballet you see relies heavily on strong side lighting,. so if you are shooting from Stage left,. you are facing tal towers of light that are postioned on stage right,. behind your dancers,. these lights not only kill the image of they are directly in the shot,. but even if they are off access and out of the shoot,. the excess light can get into your lens, and wash out the light you WANT in there to make the image.

Again,. usually the ffect is more subtle,. but it illustrates how ANY light hitting that front elemnt that is NOT part of your framed image,. is just going to get into the lens, bounce around and contibute to a duller overall final image.

[Persian-Rice]

I have never taken any comparison shots, but I can tell you one thing. I have been able to avoid some major lens flare by installing one.

It doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the sun. An example is when I shoot at the arena, I tend to get flare from the lights, so I use my hood and get no flare whatsoever. I bet that colour saturation would be effected, how much I can't really tell you.