DSLR Photography Forum

hi, new to this forum.

forgive the newbie question, at least it'll be easy to answer:

what is the reason for using a lens hood, and how how does it affect the pictures you take?

or is it for protective purposes only?

Hi pai... welcome to Shuttertalk!

Lens hoods are mainly for blocking out sunlight / stray light from entering the lens, mainly from the side, which causes "lens flare" in your photos.

Very useful on sunny days, otherwise your photos end up like this:

thank you

so should they be used all the time, or only under bright lights?

Hm... most people keep them on all the time... i guess for cosmetic reasons (looks more pro)...

But I guess if you're shooting at night or indoors (unless there are bright lights, as you say), there's no real reason to have it on.

today I used my hand..! haha

but you don't need to make adjustments to exposure settings etc right? just put it on and shoot as per normal?

frankly the only stuff i want looking pro are the pix

pai Wrote:but you don't need to make adjustments to exposure settings etc right? just put it on and shoot as per normal?

Yup... just shoot as per normal. Just watch out if you're using super wide lenses - they might be visible in the shots... but for normal lenses, it's no different.

pai Wrote:frankly the only stuff i want looking pro are the pix

lol... good attitude to have.


What equipment do you use?

adam Wrote:today I used my hand..! haha

Hehe, when I was shooting that wedding (using a friend's 300D) I used my jacket... got someone to hold it for me

Thanks for the answers!

i should get me a lens hood ..but dunn owhat sort to get ,.,,
some look more pro then others ^_-

adam Wrote:today I used my hand..! haha

Well I used my camera manual the otherday =)
don't know whay i had it with me but oh well, good thing I did =)

Hi All,

Just going trhough the old threads, very helpful indeed. As for lens hoods I have found that sometimes I can get the hood in the photo, no idea how that happens...

I haev also found it hard to put the cap on & off with the hood on, for obvious reasons, but I like to keep the cap on when not in use.

cheers,

Atlas

Dunno with the E300, but with the some wide angle lenses, sometimes it's so wide that it'll catch the edge of your lens hood as well.

I've heard people say that the Nikon 18-70 does this at the 18mm end, but it doesn't seem the case with my copy...

one can sometimes include part of the hood in the photo if the hood used is not the correct one for the lens. e.g. a hood designed for say 50mm is attached to a 24mm lens. the wide angle of view of the 24 will catch part of the hood and will result in vigenetting.

if you're using the hood that screws onto the front of the lens and you've got a number of filters attached, it would push the hood further out and that could also cause vigenetting.

I've uprgraded from using my hand to using a proper hood.
If the hood isn't attached properly, it shows in the photograph, especially for the wide lens (I've seen the hood in pictures taken with my 17-85 and 12-24), they are shaped in such a way that when aligned correctly, should not show up in the photograph.

Which hood are you using? Try rotating it, or if it's a "one-size-fits-all" then try folding it back a bit (I'm guessing on this one)

I also find it difficult to put the cap on and off with the hood on, so I would take the hood off when putting the cap on.
I think the worst is using a circular polariser - to try to rotate it and the hood is in the way, then I'll take it off because the hood isn't always necessary.

Hi All,

I am just using the hoods that came with the lenses... I agree with you Adam about the circ filter, waste of time with the hood and my fat fingers !! :-)

Cheers,

Atlas

PS. Is it my imagination or are there a lot of 'sand gropers' on this site ??

What's a sand groper?

do you have photographs with the hood in it?
my hood shows in the form of a shadow if I use the inbuilt flash, or if I haven't put it on straight. I didn't realise when I took the pics *ruined*

I use hoods as often as I can, both to block stray light and for protection.

My Sigma 10-20, Canon 70-200 and 135 all came standard with hoods, and the shop threw in a hood with my Canon 17-85 for less than 1/2 price when I bought the lens (but it was still a rip-off for a piece of felt-lined plastic)... All my hoods are bayonet style, and are stored by simply reversing them and mounting them on the lens backwards, so even in storage they protect the barrels of my lenses from scratches and bumps.

The downsides of using hoods? They make the lens bulkier, they take a second to fit and remove, and they make it difficult to rotate a polarising filter or take the lens cap on/off. Genuine hoods are also usually rediculously priced (Canon ones anyway), but still a LOT cheaper than a new lens and competitive when compared to buying a UV filter for protection (please don't buy those ultra-cheap UV filters, they somewhat defeat the purpose of buying good lenses). If your lens comes with a hood though, great! Use it! If you have to pay for one, then try to get the shop to knock down the price for the correct hood for your lens - I think there is a huge markup on these accessories for retailers.
I think in most cases if your hood is getting in your photos then you have the wrong hood (not matched to your lens) or it isn't fitted properly. In reality, the polarising filter issue is the only really annoying one for me, as the times I most want to use a polariser are often the times I most need a hood as well. My Sigma 10-20 lens is about the only one I can rotate a polariser with without taking off the hood, but thats such a wide lens that it requires a very shallow hood that doesn't do much good anyway.

The benefits of hoods? Less chance of obvious flare, better contrast (not-so-obvious veil flare), physical protection for the lens (without *any* loss of image quality), and it will allow you to shoot in light rain/snow (or heavy rain if you have weatherproof gear) without getting water-drops hitting the front element and ruining your pictures (except for really wide-angle hoods which don't protrude much). They should *not* affect your exposure in any way. If you ever find you need to increase exposure when using a hood correctly, then chances are it is the flare being cut out by the hood that is causing the drop in light... and it is a sign that the hood is doing a great job. Be happy about it
Also you can walk around and bump and brush your camera through a crowd (or the bush if you are out in the middle of nowhere) easily with a decent hood, and still instantly take shots without needing to remove the lens cap first. This is really convenient I think. The camera is always ready to shoot.

The alternatives? Many people use a UV filter to protect the lens instead of a hood, and these have their own pros and cons. I used to use this method with my old Olympus, but since I got my first lens with a hood I've been converted. Its not that a UV filter is bad, just that I think hoods are better

I dare say that Julian's recent bean-sack-into-the-lens incident probably wouldn't have resulted in any damage had a properly-fitted hood received most of the blow instead of the front of the lens. :/ Mind you, it was a kit lens... I wouldn't go out and buy an official Canon hood for my kit lens either It would probably cost 1/3 the price of the lens.

And as for when do I use one? well... unless I have a reason NOT to use one (ie I'm using a polariser or I don't want to intimidate people with a bulky camera) then I use one all the time. Its not like I plan when I'm going to scrape my lens against that brick wall, so I assume it could be any time. It just becomes automatic.

But as Adam said... they will usually cause big shadows in the bottom of the image when used with an internal flash, as they make the lens a lot bulkier and will usually block downward light from the flash. So definately don't use them in conjunction with the internal flash. (a good excuse to get an external flash if you ask me!)

I can't remember any shots of mine that have the hood visible in them though, but there might be one or two when the hood wasn't mounted properly or something.

And Adam, a Sand Groper is a nickname for a West Australian, due to the whole state being built on sand... and yes Atlas, there does seem to be a lot of us here for some strange reason, although technically I'm a Tasmanian import (been here for 8 years though, long enough to call it home now).

Kombisaurus Wrote:I dare say that Julian's recent bean-sack-into-the-lens incident probably wouldn't have resulted in any damage had a properly-fitted hood received most of the blow instead of the front of the lens. :/ Mind you, it was a kit lens... I wouldn't go out and buy an official Canon hood for my kit lens either It would probably cost 1/3 the price of the lens.

Great writeup Adrian, and some good points there. I don't think the lens hood would have helped in my situation - it attaches to the front element and the mechanism would still have been pushed in if the hood was hit.

Hmm not sure if I agree regarding the hood in lieu of the UV filter - I still think dust, oil, grime and potential sand particles could end up on the lens element and damage the coating...

Hi Guys,

kombi, as usual a very good answer I think you are right about the internal flash and the hood, now that I think about it, the only time I have seen it is when I have used the flash...

I am not sure about the price for original Olypus hoods, but I know the cap wsa $70+ !!! For the cap !!!! That is not a misprint !!! Unreal...

Adam, I will try to find one... And yes, that is what a sandgroper is

Well the strorm clouds are here agin... time to log out...

Cheers,

Atlas

Atlas Wrote:I haev also found it hard to put the cap on & off with the hood on, for obvious reasons, but I like to keep the cap on when not in use.

What's with you Australians writing these long thoughtful messages in the middle of the night? Us Canadians need to sleep, and I don't have enough time to read all this in the morning...

Atlas, yes, Olympus lens caps are the pits. A pair of new ones is a worthy investment. Nikon makes some good ones, they have finger-grabbable pinch points toward the middle of the cap. I spent about $45 Canadian ($50AUS?) on one for my 14-54, and never regretted it.

I've never heard of the hoods causing shading. It could be plain old vignetting...? (Dark corners in the images because of less light at the corners, typically when shooting at maximum aperture, but possible at any setting depending on the lens.)

shuttertalk Wrote:I don't think the lens hood would have helped in my situation - it attaches to the front element and the mechanism would still have been pushed in if the hood was hit.

Doh! <hits head homer-style> Of course... For any lens which changes length or has a rotating front section which isn't part of the main barrel (which would include the majority of consumer zooms and 99% of all kit lenses) then it probably wouldn't have prevented that kind of damage.. the hood might absorb a bit of energy by flexing itself, but the remainder would get transferred to the front section, protecting the glass but not protecting the zoom/focus mechanism from the force. Sorry.. I wasn't thinking straight.

shuttertalk Wrote:Hmm not sure if I agree regarding the hood in lieu of the UV filter - I still think dust, oil, grime and potential sand particles could end up on the lens element and damage the coating...

Certainly with regard to airborne particles of sand and salty water spray and things like that I absolutely agree.. If I were at the beach on a windy day then I would use both a filter and a hood, but definately a filter. But if I were at a street festival or sporting event where getting bumped and bustled from people is my biggest danger, I'd also possibly use both a filter and a hood, but definately a hood.
But the rest of the time? Well I think there is a good argument either way. In fact here are links to two articles which explain both sides of the coin better than I could. The first is in favour of filters, the second in favour of hoods. Both make excellent points.

http://photonotes.org/articles/filters/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/column...b-05.shtml

Cheers
Adrian

I worry about my filter and hood getting damaged haha
but overall it's cheaper than a new lens