Do I need to use lens hood for indoor theater shots?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Dave, Jun 3, 2006.

  1. Dave

    Dave Guest

    I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to
    shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time
    shooting in this kind of situation. I understand the challenges with indoor
    stage lighting but I don't know how much glare to expect. I was wondering if
    I need to use my lens hood? I have seen photographers at concerts with and
    without lens hoods on their telephoto lenses.



    Thank you for any and all help on this,

    Dave
     
    Dave, Jun 3, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dave

    Pete D Guest

    Why would you even consider shooting without it?
     
    Pete D, Jun 3, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dave

    Hunt Guest

    It all depends on spectral light sources, that might reach your lens. If ALL
    of the lighting instruments are shielded from your lens, then you'll probably
    be OK. If even one points toward your lens, then the shade will help, and
    possibly save the shot. Can you check out the lighting array before hand?
    Also, why NOT use a lens shade?

    Hunt
     
    Hunt, Jun 3, 2006
    #3
  4. Hi Dave.
    I almost always have a hood on my lenses - even when glare is not a problem
    the hood will protect the lens if I get too close to a wall, support pillar,
    chair, shelf or suchlike.
    Hoods also make (a sort of) bumper if the lens gets dropped! Happened once
    with a 24mm FD lens. Lens survived.

    Regards, Ian.
     
    Fred Anonymous, Jun 3, 2006
    #4
  5. Dave

    Stacey Guest

    Dave wrote:

    Under what situation would you not want to use one?
     
    Stacey, Jun 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Dave

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    I don't know about the original poster, but I would not want to
    use one for close focus with the Nikon's 18-70mm "kit" lens for the D70
    when used with the built-in flash.

    The same applies to the 28-105mm and the 35-135mm in Macro mode.

    The reason is that the hood casts a noticeable shadow on the
    subject. (Of course, there are other reasons to use something other
    than the built-in flash when shooting that close anyway. But --
    sometimes, you don't have any other light source available.

    Also -- the hood for the 28-105mm can sometimes block the
    autofocus assist light as well. The others don't seem to be wide enough
    to risk that.

    But at all other times, I keep the hood mounted -- though I may
    reverse it when the camera goes into the bag, just to minimize the
    amount of space taken up

    And the hood, reversed, on the 28-105mm makes it look like a
    strange new style of lens. :)

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Jun 4, 2006
    #6
  7. Dave

    Ken Davey Guest

    I witnessed a DSLR dumped on its 'nose' after the owner (not me) snagged the
    tripod with his foot, The hood, not the lens, took the impact and that $50
    hood saved (at the least) a $300 lens.
    Having said that - the only time a hood may be in the way is an extreme
    closeup (single digit inches).

    Ken.
     
    Ken Davey, Jun 4, 2006
    #7
  8. Dave

    Tony Polson Guest


    You don't know about the original poster?

    Then why not read his posting? It would have prevented you from
    wasting your time posting an unhelpful and irrelevant reply.
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 4, 2006
    #8
  9. Dave

    Tony Polson Guest

    You should always use a dedicated lens hood unless there is a very
    strong reason not to. It will help to reduce or eliminate flare and
    it also helps protect the lens from damage.
    There are good drivers and bad drivers. What others appear to do, or
    not, is not necessarily a good guide to best practice.
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 4, 2006
    #9
  10. Dave

    Pete D Guest

    I cannot for the life of me think of any reason that he would want use the
    built in flash.
     
    Pete D, Jun 4, 2006
    #10
  11. Dave

    Stacey Guest


    Exactly. I feel the same way about filters, DON'T use one unless there is a
    strong reason to.
     
    Stacey, Jun 4, 2006
    #11
  12. Dave

    Tony Polson Guest


    There is a strong reason, and that is the need to preserve the
    condition of the front element of your lenses by avoiding the need to
    clean it.

    But it is your funeral, so what do I care what you do to your lenses?
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Dave

    nick c Guest

    I wouldn't consider that to be a strong reason and perhaps, neither does
    lens designers-manufactures otherwise there would be a sheet of glass
    built into the lens to protect the front lens element.

    Just my opinion on the matter.
    <Grinning> Of course you care otherwise you wouldn't have posted your
    opinion.
     
    nick c, Jun 4, 2006
    #13
  14. Dave

    fishfry Guest

    There are two points of view on this eternal topic.

    a) Why would I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens to
    degrade the image?

    a) Why wouldn't I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens
    to protect it?
     
    fishfry, Jun 5, 2006
    #14
  15. Dave

    cjcampbell Guest

    Use the lens hood. I agree with some of the others that the protection
    alone makes it worthwhile. I have dropped several expensive lenses and
    all of them were saved by the hood.

    The only negative with lens hoods is that even those that are well
    designed will give you some vignetting at the widest angles.

    I do not use protective filters unless I am among children or at the
    beach. No need to allow blowing sand to scratch up the front element....
     
    cjcampbell, Jun 5, 2006
    #15
  16. Dave

    nick c Guest

    Although I don't buy $20 glass, I still don't use filters for front end
    lens protection, unless I'm shooting in inclement weather conditions
    that may effect lens performance or endanger the lens.
    IMO, in normal operating conditions, a much better way to protect the
    front end lens element is to use a lens hood. If your really concerned,
    buy a cheap lens, preferably used, and be spared the trauma of trying to
    decide what type/brand UV or Haze filters to buy to protect the front
    end element. BTW, Who makes a plain glass filter that is called "Lens
    Protector?"

    However, if one thinks a $20 piece of glass will provide some sort of
    lens protection insurance, then use it. Of course one might consider if
    one piece of glass provides lens protection then just think how much
    more protection one can have if two or more such filters are used for
    lens protection. <g>
     
    nick c, Jun 5, 2006
    #16
  17. Dave

    Guest Guest

    a lot of companies do, including hoya, tiffen and nikon.
     
    Guest, Jun 5, 2006
    #17
  18. Dave

    J. Clarke Guest

    Really depends on what you do. If you're recording a building renovation
    for whatever purpose, for example, it's a good idea--tearing out plaster
    makes an incredible amount of very fine abrasive dust (that may take hours
    to settle) that I for one would _much_ rather clean off of a cheap filter
    than off of an expensive lens. Shooting machine tools in operation the
    same way--I'd rather clean cutting oil and metal chips off of a throwaway
    filter than off of the front element of a good lens.

    While "smoke filled rooms" are less common than they once were, that's
    another situation where a filter can be goodness--it's surprising how fast
    that initially clear filter can turn brown under those circumstances.

    The filter isn't usually much good for drop protection though, at least not
    on a DSLR, on some point and shoots the mount design is such that it can
    transfer the shock directly into the camera frame instead of into the more
    fragile lens mechanism.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 5, 2006
    #18
  19. Dave

    Pete D Guest

    Actually there is nice article on Luminous Landscape about filters, a filter
    may degrade your shot by 10% but not using MLU or a tripod may degrade your
    shot by as much as 40%.
     
    Pete D, Jun 5, 2006
    #19
  20. Dave

    Tony Polson Guest


    Despite all the years this "eternal topic" has been discussed, no-one
    has ever managed to demonstrate that using a good quality UV filter in
    any way degrades the resulting image.

    On the other hand, the large number of used lenses advertised/sold on
    eBay with coating marks on the front element (whether declared by the
    vendor or not) is indicative of the physical damage that can be caused
    to a lens when a filter is not used.
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 5, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.