I always use the lens hood on the 24-105 (and on all other lenses too).
Now, let me ask...why wouldn't you want to use the lens hood? Small as it is in it's coverage, it still would help slightly for lens flare (and even if it doesn't help, it certainly won't hurt). Also, (and my primary reason) is that it acts as a 'buffer' against small impacts that might otherwise hit the front lens element.
There's no downside to using the 24-105's small lens hood, and the advantages are covered in the posts above.
However, I never really used it on mine since I primarily shoot in situations with no significant sources of flare (e.g. low lighting). It really depends on where and when you shoot. The protection is nice and all, but the risk of bumping your front element is not that great unless you're a careless person.
dystorsion wrote:
... The protection is nice and all, but the risk of bumping your front element is not that great unless you're a careless person.
Nothing careless about it...an accidental bump can occur anywhere to anyone...pro or not. It's not a matter of if it will happen but rather when it will happen (sooner or later) and you're going to curse yourself for not having the lens hood on! At least, that's my opinion...YMMV.
omarlyn wrote:
Nothing careless about it...an accidental bump can occur anywhere to anyone...pro or not. It's not a matter of if it will happen but rather when it will happen (sooner or later) and you're going to curse yourself for not having the lens hood on! At least, that's my opinion...YMMV.
You need it to prevent the original 'ray flare' that the first production run lenses were recalled for. I think there is an internal part that got painted as a result.
But seriously, the hood on this lens only helps with light sources that are just forward of perpendicular. I use it, but the front element protection is my main reason.
dystorsion wrote:
The protection is nice and all, but the risk of bumping your front element is not that great unless you're a careless person.
Funny. I guess, since I'm a careful driver I shouldn't wear a seat belt because there's not much of a chance of getting into an accident. With lens hood protection, it works in regards to other people bumping into me, not just to reduce the risk of my own carelessness. Unless of course you live somewhere that has no people - wait, you live in New York - last I heard there are quite a few people there.
Walking around photographing landscape/cityscape with a polarizing filter -- absolutely not.
You can cancel lens flare with your off-hand braced against the side of the lens.
Lens hoods do help protect the lens element, but can also lead to lens damage when removing --- scratched a Zeiss lens with its metal lenshood -- only one bobble needed. A filter would have been smart(er).
Lens hoods are also unreasonably bulky for transporting your gear or fitting into your bag with large/wide zoom lenses: 16-35L II, 24-70L, 28-300L, etc. (The lens hood is a cruel joke for the 24 TS-E II )
Yes, I use lenshoods most of the time, but not happily.
I'd say use it on a small lens like the 24-105, except when using the CPL.
REDSTONE1 wrote:
Opinions welcome on if it's necessary to use a lens hood on th 24-105. If yes what circumstances? thx
By default I would always use a hood on this and just about any other lens. It has advantages in terms of potentially flare protection and some physical protection of the lens element as well. In some situations where I know that flare won't be an issue and perhaps I don't want to take time to add the hood I might forego its use, but that is a very rare thing.
I have never even taken the hood out of the packaging. other than the protection aspect I havn't really seen a real need for it. The only lens I have ever used the hood on was the 24-70 and that was becuase of the reverse zoom and I kept the lens extended a lot of the time. My bag is pretty cramped, I don't want to loose space to hoods.
Also, not that I know but doesn't it make the lens more cumbersome to handle (even reversed)? do you ever grab the lens by the hood and worry it may come apart? Doesn't seem to be the same quality of plastic used in the outer shell of lens construction.
I almost always have the hood on my 24-105. This is my workhorse, walkaround lens and my walking around is usually hiking. Its always brushing against trees and shrubs as it hangs at my side and this protects the front element from scratching. I have to take it off when I set up with my Lee filter holder but otherwise it is married to the lens. I don't always use my 17-40 lens hood as that thing seems next to useless for flare and for protection but again if hiking and it is mounted to the camera I will keep the hood on for the same "twig" protection
canon pants wrote:
do you ever grab the lens by the hood and worry it may come apart? Doesn't seem to be the same quality of plastic used in the outer shell of lens construction.
WOW! You should NEVER handle a lens by grabbing them just from the lens hood. That's a sure way to have a very bad day…that's kind of a no-brainer.
omarlyn wrote:
WOW! You should NEVER handle a lens by grabbing them just from the lens hood. That's a sure way to have a very bad day…that's kind of a no-brainer.
Omar
I promise I wont find out on my own . But if you reverse the hood and need to take the lens out of a bag other than a lens cap what do you pull from?
