70-300 DO: To Hood or not to Hood.

[MDJAK]

The main reason I bought the 70-300 DO IS Canon lens was its compact size. I really wanted a walk-around lens with good reach. However, when the lens hood is in place, it's not so small and unobtrusive any longer. I know (at least I think I do) that a hood is necessary outdoors. Is it necessary indoors also?

When does a lens require a hood? Is there a certain focal length and above? Or below?

Thanks
Mark

[darkdrakon]

this lens always requires a hood as it's quite prone to flair...

[RJSorensen]

Yep, take them off as one needs/must but if there is any way to leave them on, it just makes for better pictures.

[CyberDyneSystems]

As long as we are talking about lenses,. YES wear a hood!

[RJSorensen]

I reverse the hood on my EFS 17-85 when I must . . . I do not know if this will work for you on this lens or not. CDS will know, I think he has one of these compact wonders.

[pierrot]

You can reverse the hood ONLY as long as we are talking about lenses of course as CDS said ;)

[Jon]

When does a lens require a hood? Is there a certain focal length and above? Or below?

Thanks
Mark

Lenses of focal length longer than 1 mm need a hood indoors or out.

[MDJAK]

Jon, is that a joke? I've never seen a hood on a 50mm.

[RJSorensen]

I have one on my Canon 50mm f/1.4 and always use it.

B&H Link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=162044&is=REG&addedTroughValue=12140_USA&addedTroughType=accessory

[MDJAK]

Live and learn. That's one of the things I find most fun. This is a constant learning experience. I guess I'm remembering my older days of photography, which dictated that if a lens wasn't supplied with a hood, it didn't need one.

[RJSorensen]

In my own simple tests . . . I find the colors to be better with the hood on, regardless of lens. I don't know the fancy part . . . Bob or someone like him could explain it proper. But regardless, to my eye, to my taste, I pay for the best photograph possible with the equipment I own at the time. The hood is worth the price of admission for me.

[MDJAK]

RJ, thanks for that info. Can I assume from all the replies to this post that every lens should have a hood? And in addition to that, every canon lens has a specific hood sold for it? I have the 28-135 which did not come with one. I did not know there was one available. Also, the 100mm macro?

[SkipD]

Can I assume from all the replies to this post that every lens should have a hood? Mark, it is wise to always use a hood on any lens. There are two reasons that I have for using hoods.

One reason is to minimize problems from stray light. For that, you need a hood that has a non-reflective interior surface. You will find all sorts of interior materials - ribbed surfaces, black flock, etc. Cheaper hoods probably have the minimum interior anti-reflection characteristics.

The second reason to always use a good quality (sturdiness is one major quality to look for) hood is for physical protection of the lens. I do NOT use filters for lens protection for a number of reasons, except when I wish to shoot in a sandstorm or something like that. However, I have a Nikon F (circa 1967) that I dropped on a sidewalk in 1968 while shooting an automobile race. The lens hood folded in, saving the lens and body. I replaced the hood, but the lens and body are working fine today without any repairs. A cheap rubber lens hood would not have provided the protection that a good metal hood did.

[Andy_T]

What SkipD said.

I use a hood if possible on all my lenses (except the 18-55) for protection.

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon]

Jon, is that a joke? I've never seen a hood on a 50mm.

Sorry - been out with a cold. No. The only 50 Canon didn't make (IIRC) a lens hood for was the FD 50 f/3.5 macro, which had the front element recessed a good 30-40 mm from the front of the lens barrel, so it was "self-hooding". Even then, if you put a filter on, that wouldn't be sheltered against stray light so could cause flare. The EF 50 f/1.8 Mk. II needs an adapter to use Canon's recommended hood, but they still do have a hood for it. Just because they don't ship with it, doesn't mean it isn't necessary.

[adnil]

Will a rubber lens hood that folds back protect my 70-300 DO IS from lens flare?

[CyberDyneSystems]

It would be better than nothing..
But the DO does come with a hood that is designed for it...

[Salleke]

Hello Mark,

You as owner of a 70-300 DO IS USM can you please tell me in a few words if you are happy with this lens and with the picture quality? Would you buy it again? I'm in doubt to buy one myself but every where i hear of issues with this lens. Thank you in advance, Salvio.

[MDJAK]

If you are looking for the ultimate in sharpness at 300, this lens probably does not cut it. If you are hyper critical and make large prints (13x19 or larger) and were at 300mm, the picture might be soft.

If you want a very good lens with great range in a small size, I highly recommend it.

Go to www.luminouslandscape.com (http://www.luminouslandscape.com) and you will see that it has become one of his most used lenses. Look at his most recent expedition to Bangladesh.

[DavidEB]

So if I have a Rebel, with a 1.6x crop factor, is the hood supplied with this lens the best choice? Shouldn't the smaller camera have a deeper hood?

Is there a list anywhere of which hoods to buy for a given lens, to optimize shading on a 1.6x crop camera?