I have always been a proponent of using a lens hood. Primarily for protection, more so than reducing flare. I have uv filters on all the front elements so protection is not as demanding for the hood. I am starting to wonder if using a lens hood all the time is not necessary? I have a small bag so it makes it a challenge to deal with the hood in the reverse way...idk.... just thinking out loud here.
Second question... I have two lens hoods that are very close in size, but not exactly. one for the 16-35 & one for the 24-70. obviously these things are engineered for optimal performance on each lens. I was considering just using one lens hood for both, as I can only have one lens on the camera at once. I would use the longer one, which means I need to be conscious of the wide focal length on the 16-35. That would likely be the only thing I need to consider unless I am overlooking something?
I use lens hoods religiously. Filters, on the other hand, only if absolutely there is a need to. Why add another piece of glass in your wonderful optical instrument? Just my opinion and your mileage may vary.
My opinion is that lens hoods are part of the optical formula of the lens. The flare that is stopped with a bright light source also indicates a loss of contrast that is stopped under less extreme lighting. Since I mainly use high contrast GM lenses, one of the last things I would do is throw out some of that contrast the engineers worked so hard to enable.
If you like lower contrast lenses for artistic reasons or want more flare then feel free to leave off the hood.
As far as protection, I run UV filters on all my lenses. It makes them easier to clean, mostly I would remove the filter and wash it in the sink with dish soap, the protected lens rarely needs any cleaning. For physical protection, I'm not sure, seems like a hood would do better at bumps, but not against a child that wants to touch the lens.
tschopp wrote:
My opinion is that lens hoods are part of the optical formula of the lens. The flare that is stopped with a bright light source also indicates a loss of contrast that is stopped under less extreme lighting. Since I mainly use high contrast GM lenses, one of the last things I would do is throw out some of that contrast the engineers worked so hard to enable.
If you like lower contrast lenses for artistic reasons or want more flare then feel free to leave off the hood.
As far as protection, I run UV filters on all my lenses. It makes them easier to clean, mostly I would remove the filter and wash it in the sink with dish soap, the protected lens rarely needs any cleaning. For physical protection, I'm not sure, seems like a hood would do better at bumps, but not against a child that wants to touch the lens....Show more →
you make a very good point about the contrast issue. I had not considered that, thank you.
I checked that out. Good thread. As I said before, I have always been a proponent and now I still am. Sometimes you just have to accept things that must be.. lol.
I generally don't use hoods, but do often use Kenko ZXII L41 or Zeiss UV filters, as I like the results from some of my lenses when they are used. I do forego filters and use the hood on my Sigma 14-24.
Flare as a contrast destroyer is EVERYWHERE. Even on cloudy, shady days when you have the great soft box in the sky, it's there. I silently chuckle when I see people everywhere with their lens shades reversed. I made the mistake a few years ago by gently going up to a photographer at the Moeraki Boulders in New Zealand on a cloudy day and suggesting that they still might want the shade. After all it was already mounted. I REALLY tried to be gentle and non-arrogant, but still got an earful, basically bugger off!
We love getting tips from people we don’t know, who think they are “in the know”
doc4x5 wrote:
Flare as a contrast destroyer is EVERYWHERE. Even on cloudy, shady days when you have the great soft box in the sky, it's there. I silently chuckle when I see people everywhere with their lens shades reversed. I made the mistake a few years ago by gently going up to a photographer at the Moeraki Boulders in New Zealand on a cloudy day and suggesting that they still might want the shade. After all it was already mounted. I REALLY tried to be gentle and non-arrogant, but still got an earful, basically bugger off!
I run long distances with the 200-600mm. The camera + lens fits nicely in the Black Diamond Distance 8 running pack. Adding the bulky lens hood reversed requires upsizing to the Distance 15. So, it's most often hoodless in the Distance 8. The teleconverters fit nicely in the side pockets.
I bring the hood when it's snowing or raining to keep the precipitation off the front element. When shooting near the sun without out, I try to find natural shading which helps retain contrast.
vvgogh wrote:
I run long distances with the 200-600mm. The camera + lens fits nicely in the Black Diamond Distance 8 running pack. Adding the bulky lens hood reversed requires upsizing to the Distance 15. So, it's most often hoodless in the Distance 8. The teleconverters fit nicely in the side pockets.
I bring the hood when it's snowing or raining to keep the precipitation off the front element. When shooting near the sun without out, I try to find natural shading which helps retain contrast.
Problem with looking for natural shading is you limiting your compositions to fit with the shade.
vvgogh wrote:
I run long distances with the 200-600mm. The camera + lens fits nicely in the Black Diamond Distance 8 running pack. Adding the bulky lens hood reversed requires upsizing to the Distance 15. So, it's most often hoodless in the Distance 8. The teleconverters fit nicely in the side pockets.
I bring the hood when it's snowing or raining to keep the precipitation off the front element. When shooting near the sun without out, I try to find natural shading which helps retain contrast.
I don't use this lens often, but I also find the original lens hood on the 200-600 to be a problem in some ways. It is really long and makes handling the camera+lens awkward. Some say that this hood protects the lens from occasional bumps but in real life I believe it is more of a hazard that greatly increases the risk of bumping the lens against something while hiking in a bush/densely forested environment. I have heard that the same problem exists with the big whites and some of their owners replace the original hoods by the shorter custom-made ones.
I normally have hoods on my other lenses, e.g. 35 GM, Tamron 35-150, or 50-400.
Something else, I am not sure whether a lens hood is as important indoors or in low light as it might be when shooting in daylight.
I fibbed...I meant to say I don't use a UV filter on it. I do use a CPL or ND/CPLs on the front when shooting waterfalls.
I don't do rear filters....tried one brand and they were super hard to put in and take out without breaking, before that I got burned on the Aurora Kickstarter. In the end I think the rear filter options introduce more image issues than the front ones. And I like polarization when using waterfalls, so I was going to put something on the front anyway.
tschopp wrote: , Not even a rear filter? I bet you just haven't tried hard enough to take off the hood.
It depends primarily on the lens and secondarily on the shooting situation. As a general rule, I don't bother with them on shorter lenses, because I either chose them for their flare resistance or I like the way they flare (Rokkor 58/1.2, for example) and am willing to handshade around the problem otherwise. 135 and up, I use them.
, Not even a rear filter? I bet you just haven't tried hard enough to take off the hood.