Do you use your lens hood indoor for portrait work?

I plan on learning about portrait work now that I have a good setup. I'll be using my 30D, 50mm f/1.8 and 580EX flash. I have the hood for the nifty and was wondering if I should use it. Should I be concerned with stra light when I can control the light and the only soure is a flash? Does having the hood on affect how much light the lens sees from the flash?

I dont think its really going to make any difference shooting with a 580ex on camera. It always good to have a hood, the the light source is behind the camera kinda.

If you had strobes and softboxes to the side of the camrea, id say YES, use a hood.

a hood is always better than no hood, but in your case, i dont think you need one.

I never really thought about it...I use my hoods all the time. You can still get stray light and loss of contrast indoors.

the 50 1.8's lens is recessed enough to not need a hood, but if you have one it wont hurt to use it. Having the hood on will not affect how much light enters the lens. If you have one, I'd say use it.

My 17-40 has the hood on permanently. and any pics I take of people indoors with it on, I also use my speedlite. the on-board flash gets obscured by hoods even on smaller lenses.
My thrifty 50 I don't have, or need, a hood for. Certainly I wouldn't spend money on one, especially not the Canon one....
The 70-200 is a great portrait lens but not all that useful indoors, unless you have a bit of room, and I probably wouldn't use the hood indoors because it just makes the whole thing too long.

I haven't gotten my hands on the sigma yet - it's 'in the way' as my friend Tareq so eloquently puts it _ but I would probably not use the hood indoors with that lens either.

So I guess the only reason to use a hood indoors is because you can't be bothered to take it off - at least in my case.

If my lens has a hood, on it goes.

Mark

Hmm ok I should have expected both sides of this issue. I do own the Canon hood for the 50mm f/1.8 and I always have it on so I guess I will just leave it on since it does no harm.

Unless your on-camera flash is the only direct or reflecting light source in the room, the hood may be helpful. Mine are always on.

With the 50 I would say yes, Use it

>>>Do you use your lens hood indoor for portrait work?<<<

Always....

Absolutely. The *only* time I don't use a hood is if I think it'll interfere with the hotshoe-mounted flash shooting at very close range (i.e. the 580EX is in the -7º position).

Hoods stay on my lenses all the time no matter what (except when I'm using a CP on some lenses)

statenine wrote in post #2207596
the 50 1.8's lens is recessed enough to not need a hood, but if you have one it wont hurt to use it. Having the hood on will not affect how much light enters the lens. If you have one, I'd say use it.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #2208165
If my lens has a hood, on it goes.

Mark

Jon wrote in post #2208204
Unless your on-camera flash is the only direct or reflecting light source in the room, the hood may be helpful. Mine are always on.

md_129 wrote in post #2208220
With the 50 I would say yes, Use it

SkipD wrote in post #2208321
>>>Do you use your lens hood indoor for portrait work?<<<

Always....

Double Negative wrote in post #2208361
Absolutely. The *only* time I don't use a hood is if I think it'll interfere with the hotshoe-mounted flash shooting at very close range (i.e. the 580EX is in the -7º position).

YosemiteJunkie wrote in post #2209489
Hoods stay on my lenses all the time no matter what (except when I'm using a CP on some lenses)

Thanks guys. That's all I needed to hear. I like to do what is correct so since I own the hood I will use it.

I think it's funny that people think that just because the Nifty has been made to sell and priced for the consumer that the hood would also be dirt cheap. The hood costs no more or less than any other hood except some of the inexpensive rubber ones but the way some people are adamant about not buying the hood for the Nifty is a bit funny. They will swear by hoods but because the Nifty is cheap (inexpensive) they **** about the cost of the hood. Why not go on and on about a flash sync cable costing $40?. I could probably make the same cable for about $10. Even if you didn't get a great price on the lens or the hood the whole deal costs just under $100 and where else can you get a lens that has the ability to produce outstanding pictures with a hood for that price. If they were sold together people would still be flocking to buy it and wouldn't bat an eye if they got it for $100. I am not comparing quality but the 50mm f/1.4 or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 are still much more expensive so its not like there is an immediate alternative for the same price.

TMR Design wrote in post #2210546
Thanks guys. That's all I needed to hear. I like to do what is correct so since I own the hood I will use it.

I think it's funny that people think that just because the Nifty has been made to sell and priced for the consumer that the hood would also be dirt cheap. The hood costs no more or less than any other hood except some of the inexpensive rubber ones but the way some people are adamant about not buying the hood for the Nifty is a bit funny. They will swear by hoods but because the Nifty is cheap (inexpensive) they **** about the cost of the hood. Why not go on and on about a flash sync cable costing $40?. I could probably make the same cable for about $10. Even if you didn't get a great price on the lens or the hood the whole deal costs just under $100 and where else can you get a lens that has the ability to produce outstanding pictures with a hood for that price. If they were sold together people would still be flocking to buy it and wouldn't bat an eye if they got it for $100. I am not comparing quality but the 50mm f/1.4 or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 are still much more expensive so its not like there is an immediate alternative for the same price.

I think it's mostly because the 50/1.8 is recessed on the front-- it doesn't need a hood because it more or less has one built in. This is the same reason that many will tell you not to put a UV filter on it-- because it would be difficult to get anything in to break the lens. That and it is a little sillly to put nearly $60 worth of protection (hood+filter) onto a lens that cost $70.

If it doesn't need a hood then is Canon making one just for the hell of it? They make a hood that can only be used on that lens. Are you saying it is a completely unneccasary accessory?