Do you use your Hood?

I use a hood so I don't look like a newbie dork...

On some lenses I use a hood all the time, like the 17-55 2.8 IS, which flares like crazy, so a hood helps. Some lenses, I almost never use the hood, like the 10-22mm and now the 17-40L on full-frame because the hood is so wide and cumbersome and doesn't appear to help all that much (or maybe it does a bit). On my telephotos, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't - I don't when I want to be a bit more discreet or if the hood makes it hard to fit the lens in my camera bag. For example, I hate the hood of my 70-200f4L because it's so large and makes the lens so much bigger, less discreet and harder to fit in my bag. I'll use it when I can though. I also bought a smaller collapsible rubber hood to use when the original hood is too much trouble to bring.

mikechong wrote in post #8463599
Some lenses, I almost never use the hood, like the 10-22mm and now the 17-40L on full-frame because the hood is so wide and cumbersome and doesn't appear to help all that much (or maybe it does a bit)

The EW 83-E hood does indeed suck. If you are willing to shave it back just a hair the EW 83-H hood from the 24-105L works on the 17-40L on a FF camera without vignetting. It's a much better hood.

la canon amateur wrote in post #8461746
When I have needed a little extra shutter speed at a moments notice, while shooting in Aperture Priority, especially indoors, removing the hood has allowed a slight increase in shutter speed (gathers more ambient light), without having to increase the ISO. And of course if that didn't do the trick I would increase the ISO. It does make difference though not ideal.

That would be flare.

RDKirk wrote in post #8465390
That would be flare.

Correct - all the additional light is spoiling the picture.

Mostly to protect front element because I dont like using filters.

I use the 17-55 hood but not the 10-22 hood. It's just too damn big to carry around for the minimal benefits it offers.

I use lens hoods all the time, don't like lens flare in my pictures. Looking at some pictures of mine just today that were taken with a 10-22mm Canon lens. There were too many shots with lens flare, I will be buying a lens hood for that lens too.

Always - I'm practically OCD about it. New lenses that come hoodless don't get used until I get a hood, the right hood. Why? I don't baby my gear, it's there to be used, consequently it gets bumped on occasion, so mainly for protection. I also do a lot of low light stuff (but with odd bits of light creeping in from all directions), where any loss of contrast is fatal to a pics well being.

i almost never shoot without a hood

havnt used a hood for a very long time, usually shooting with filters though....

Yes all the time, the only exception is macro work.

I started using hoods long ago when about all you could get were the collapsible rubber ones that screw into the filter threads. There was no such thing as hoods dedicated for each specific lens in those days.

We used hoods for what they wre originally intended: To help with stray light entering the lens and creating flare, not because of any perceived protection from bumps and bangs. Over the years I've come to the conclusion that hoods are a necessary part of photography and I never buy a lens without getting a hood for it at the same time.

No reason not to.

Flaring isn't just light orbs appearing in a frame, it also robs the contrast of an image (as stated already).