I never use hoods - am I missing something?

I hate hoods. They add more bulk to my already bulky lenses. I don't shoot into the sun much, and I've only had flare in a handful of my shots. On the rare occasions I might get flare I'd just put something in the way to block out the sun. Yet people moan when they're not included with lenses.

I know some people use them for protection, but is there some other benefit they provide?

ps, if anyone wants a 67mm hood for the 70-200 or 77mm hood for the 17-40, they're on ebay.co.uk

I always use them for lens protection and to keep the sun hitting it from the sides...Plus they look cool

The day you drop or bang your lens onto a hard surface (like concrete, a brick wall, or even someone else's 350D with a 70-200 lens mounted on it!!) is the day you'd wish you had never sold your lens hood!

Not much.

I am quite sure the 'use-hood-or-risk-eternal-damnation' crowd will be with you shortly, however. I have no problems with those who want to use hoods, heck I do myself, just don't tell me what to do.

Here are my personal findings (again, written from the perspective of not telling anybody what to do, just what I have discovered).

It apparently depends where you are. I shot in the Asia Pacific for 18 months and didn't see a single flare incident. When moving to higher or lower latitudes, flare became more apparent. Wierd. Geography matters. I would have thought that the sunny equatorial regions had more sunlight. Then again, that's not always true either.

Telephoto hoods can be quite useable. However, the narrow angle of view of tele lenses tends to keep the sun out of the frame anyway. They are deep enough to provide physical impact protection.

Standard zoom hoods are questionable. I leave them off indoors, but outdoors with VERY strong sunlight, I put them on anyway for what little benefit they may offer. Note that things like the 24-105L hood only works well at 24mm. 24-70 hood is better, it works at all focal lengths due to the unique design.

The ultrawideangle hoods are *HOPELESS* IMO. They neither provide adequate shielding area against flare, nor physical impact. They make it incredibly difficult to pack a lens in a bag, and they are UGLY. You can probably guess which one I am referring to, the 17-40/16-35/10-22 hood. Useless. I skip this one. Flared out an entire shoot even with the hood on. Stuff it. If it is so small, it isn't even going to help with the usual 'it improves contrast' argument. If I don't notice a contrast improvement, I don't care. I have chased percentage points of incremental improvement before in another interest, and it is a totally pointless exercise, looking back.

300 f/4L IS and 400/5.6 have the nicest hood designs I've seen. I love the integral pull-out-and-twist hoods, those are genuinely easy to live with and work with, and hardly add anything to the size of the lens.

Bottom line however, is that all of them make your lens at least 2-3X more intimidating and impressive looking. However, none of that has any effect on the chicks, who do not seem to show any increased interest in either my gear or myself. YMMV. You and I seem to have made up our minds already though

I think hoods are benificial. However, there many are shots that it will not matter if you are hooded.

If I bang my lens on a wall at the point where the hood would protect it, my filter will get damaged. If I drop it, the lens would probably break regardless!

05Xrunner wrote in post #2131283
Plus they look cool

That is so the answer to why people use hoods

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2131361
If I bang my lens on a wall at the point where the hood would protect it, my filter will get damaged. If I drop it, the lens would probably break regardless!

Not necessarily! I have read of people who have dropped a 70-200 lens (with hood) and got away with no damage at all to the lens (OK the hood was a little dented but so what)

Thanks Lightstream. Nice to hear I'm not the only one that thinks that.

But don't say anything bad about the 17-40 hood, you might put off the three watchers I have at the moment!

A01 wrote in post #2131374
That is so the answer to why people use hoods

I agree! Would be nice to hear more people admit it!

They can help to produce more contrast aand reduce flare...

Lightstream wrote in post #2131325
Not much.


17-40/16-35/10-22 hood. Useless. I skip this one.

If you have an 1.6 crop body (300D, 350D, 400D, D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 20Da, 30D), or a 1.3 crop camera (1D, 1D II, 1D II N), buy for the 17-40 the EW-83DII hood which is made for the 24 f/1.4L. It's marvelous! Not only it is cool, it is long, and narrow, so it won't take much space in a bag, and it is NOT useless... It protects the front element, and it is very hard when it is on, that is, it's not easy to move, difficult to miss the lens on the front element and get the element damaged, that is, if the ground is just straight.

I have used the 17-40 with the standard EW-83E... YUCK!
I have used the 17-40 with the EW-83DII... SUPERB!

I recommend it, it does work.

BUT you have to know how to use it, it is a little difficult hood... Very stiff if you do hold the hood, if you just rotate, it fits in place very nicely.

aero145 wrote in post #2131409
BUT you have to know how to use it, it is a little difficult hood... Very stiff if you do hold the hood, if you just rotate, it fits in place very nicely.

I am confused....how is it difficult..dont you just twist it on like all others?

Lightstream wrote in post #2131325
Telephoto hoods can be quite useable. However, the narrow angle of view of tele lenses tends to keep the sun out of the frame anyway. They are deep enough to provide physical impact protection.

It's not a matter of the sun being in the frame - it's a matter of the sun's direct light striking the front element of the lens. No hood blocks the sun if you choose to have it in the image frame. Otherwise, it would vignette. But if the sun is outside the frame and still shines on the front element, it will generate internal reflections in the lens. It may result in visible flare, it may weaken contrast, or it may not have any visible effect at all.

Yes, the hood, by design, has to accomodate the widest focal length of the lens. The 24-70 hood is unique in that it's effect varies according to the focal length.

I have to agree somewhat - these hoods are very shallow, as they need to be for the angle-of-view presented by the lens. More effective would be to keep the sun away from the front of the lens. You gain a few degrees of angle before the shade of the hood no longer protects the front of the lens.

Yes, great hoods on those two lenses.

Bottom line however, is that all of them make your lens at least 2-3X more intimidating and impressive looking. However, none of that has any effect on the chicks, who do not seem to show any increased interest in either my gear or myself. YMMV. You and I seem to have made up our minds already though

Chicks dig nice hoods.

aero145 wrote in post #2131409
Not only it is cool....

Thanks for your views, but I'm not convinced. I don't want to look cool when taking photos, I want my image to look cool!

In fact, it's a reason not to use hoods. I want to be as discreet as possible, otherwise I feel like people are watching me and I can't concentrate on my shot.