I never use hoods - am I missing something?

Double Negative wrote in post #2132795
There's no hiding when bustin' out the ol' 70-200mm. White, black - hell, even camoflage... It wouldn't matter. It's big and the hood makes it even bigger. For a real thrill, toss on the 2x II TC. People kind of just stop and stare, helplessly offering commentary such as, "wow, you could get the whole town with that in two shots!"

I can't even tell you how many comments I got walking around with the 1D2N and The Brick(TM) in St. Maarten. Every electronics store worker stopped what they were doing and took note. Jewelry store salespeople saw their mark. Bartenders commented. Passers-by cleared out of the way.

You'd think you could part the Red Sea with some of this gear.

LOL. I was shooting last night with my 350D, grip, 24-70EX (with hood), and an extension tube. The grip really makes more people stare. It was weird. People look at me like I'm more than a pretend photographer now

angryhampster wrote in post #2132816
LOL. I was shooting last night with my 350D, grip, 24-70EX (with hood), and an extension tube. The grip really makes more people stare. It was weird. People look at me like I'm more than a pretend photographer now

LOL! You're right, between the grip and the hood - it gets attention. I honestly can't remember how many times people have asked me, "are you a professional photographer?" while walking around recently (mostly in St. Maarten, some on the cruise ship).

People expect to see P&S cameras for the most part these days. If you break the norm, you get some attention. Perhaps they're wondering if you're still shooting film, possibly having associated SLRs with film. The follow up question to that is usually, "is that digital?" Then of course comes the "how many megapixels?" question.

aero145 wrote in post #2131409
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.

or the EW-83J hood made for the 17-55 IS... Many people I know got that one instead of the 83DII because the 83J is even deeper, fits perfectly (83DII supposedly is a tight fit), and quite a bit cheaper!

I've been using it for months and there's no signs of vigentting at 17mm at f4! give it a try!

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2131494
I know. I've missed a lot of potentially good shots because I've been too self conscious, especially in crowds in third world countries.

i've had that problem, especially in areas like theme parks or youth sporting events.

These days people are so uptight about "pedophiles" and things like that...

I just feel weird having a large lens around young children or people I don't know.

Lightstream wrote in post #2131325
Not much.
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.

Why? I have the 24-105L and the hood moves with the front of the lens, why is this only good for 24mm?

mistry wrote in post #2133076
Why? I have the 24-105L and the hood moves with the front of the lens, why is this only good for 24mm?

That's why it's no good at any focal length other than 24mm It's the same distance from the front element.

mistry wrote in post #2133076
Why? I have the 24-105L and the hood moves with the front of the lens, why is this only good for 24mm?

Because it has to be wide enough to not vignette at the 24mm end. Problem is, as the focal length gets longer, the hood needs to be longer as well.

On the 24-70mm, the lens zooms in/out *within the hood* and therefore adjusts its length automatically.

rdenney wrote in post #2132050
Next time you see a professional working, look at see if he or she is using a hood

I've seen them use them indoors at press events. Is that to reduce flare and increase contrast too??

angryhampster wrote in post #2132642
You own a white lens and you say you don't like people watching you?

The colour is irrelevant I think. A lens is a lens. A lot of people here think that non-photographers are amazed by white lenses but it's probably just the same to most as the difference between a red car and a blue one.

In a lot of the places I went, I feel uncomfortable showing my gear when it equates to much more than a year's wages for them. But I need a lens to take photos, I don't need a hood.

I'd love to see a an example of a shot with and without a hood.

rdenney wrote in post #2132050
Next time you see a professional working, look at see if he or she is using a hood. Pros don't buy or use stuff because it looks cool. They will only endure the hassle of a hood if the results are worth the trouble. The price of a Hasselblad compendium shade is several hundred dollars yet most working pros who do portraits with Hasselblads have them. I've never seen a TV cameraman yet not using a hood, and usually a very expensive, very big hood.

HALF the pro's I've seen don't use hoods. Yes, I have been watching, and these are the badged, credentialed folks who are clearly on very official business..

I dunno. No big loss to me.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2133253
In a lot of the places I went, I feel uncomfortable showing my gear when it equates to much more than a year's wages for them. But I need a lens to take photos, I don't need a hood.

.

That's a good point. I'm going to India this winter and visiting an orphanage that my parents support. I know the kids are great, but I wonder if the elders will think oddly of me waving around $1500 worth of gear.

Lightstream wrote in post #2134128
HALF the pro's I've seen don't use hoods. Yes, I have been watching, and these are the badged, credentialed folks who are clearly on very official business..

I dunno. No big loss to me.

Newsprint is not revealing.

I will do a demonstration if we ever see the sun again. On some lenses, and in some situations, the difference will be rather significant.

I see newspaper photogs without the hood sometimes, but I don't see magazine photographers or advertizing photogs going hoodless very often. Of course, there's the issue of portability and time constraints. News happens on its own schedule, whereas an advertising shoot generally is planned and scheduled by the parties involved. the news photographer hurries to the news - no time to dress the lens. Advertising photogs have fewer time constraints. And they strive for perfect output.

These folks all like their hoods:

Hood is like a condom, it protects you from unwanted accidents! Some people like it, some dont. Its better to be safe and sorry

Lightstream wrote in post #2131325
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

You need to do this this and this or this well happen and you will be mad or you do this this and that.

I hate hoods.

They don't fit in my bag, they are cumbersome, bulky and noisy rattling around in a pack..

I Always use a hood unless I am indoors in low light in which case it's 50/50%

Hoods do more than just reduce flare.

Look closely at the "tulip" style of hood.
They cut off nearly all extraneous light from hitting the front lens element.
The fact of the matter is that any light coming at any angle that hits the front lens element that IS NOT a part of the picture your making, will to some small degree effect your image. This is that "contrast" thing that people often mention. It's real. Hoods reduce this extraneous light dramatically.

Yes, you can go without a hood and still get really great results. Yes in many cases the difference may be hardly measurable, but to me that's all I need to know.

On a sunny day you can see side by side a dramatic difference between hood/ vs. no hood images.

The fact that it is most noticeable in these bright sunny conditions does not mean that the detrimental aspects of extraneous diffracted light is limited only to those extreme circumstances. In fact the same effect comes into play with any amount of light, though to an obviously lesser degree.

The hood stays on and I know my pics are better for it.

Blackie wrote in post #2134232
Hood is like a condom, it protects you from unwanted accidents! Some people like it, some dont. Its better to be safe and sorry

But it's got a big hole in it.

Sorry - had to be said.....