When/when not to use a lens hood?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Toomanyputters, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. I have Sigma 100-300mm AF lens. It came with a large lens hood. (and I'm
    somewhat a novice using a telephoto lens) Any suggestions on when and when
    not to be using it?
     
    Toomanyputters, Feb 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Toomanyputters

    C J Campbell Guest

    It should be used any time that it does not get in the way. It is supposed
    to prevent light reflections on the different elements of the lens from
    ruining the picture. It also helps prevent damage to the front of the lens.
    It is especially useful outdoors in bright sunlight.

    Some lens hoods cast a shadow when flash is used, or you may see some
    vignetting at the widest angles of the lens, but a few test shots will show
    you whether that is a problem.
     
    C J Campbell, Feb 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Toomanyputters

    Himm Guest

    Do not use it when using the built in flash, you will get shadows, I use
    it for outdoor pictures.

    ~ Himm
     
    Himm, Feb 14, 2005
    #3

  4. It's used to stop "lens flare", stray light hitting the lens.

    As others have suggested, I always use it to protect the front element and
    only remove it when using a flash.
     
    Dave R knows who, Feb 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Toomanyputters

    Sheldon Guest

    I leave mine on all the time for lens protection. As others have said, some
    will cause vignetting at the widest angles, and some will cause shadows if
    you use the built-in flash. A couple of shots should give you the story on
    that one.

    Most people now use them for protection, but if you've ever had to hold your
    hand up to your lens to prevent reflections from the sun, that's what their
    original and main purpose is. Use if all the time if it doesn't get in the
    way. Might save your lens someday.
     
    Sheldon, Feb 14, 2005
    #5
  6. The purpose of the lens hood is to try to minimize lens flare. The hoods
    that come with such lenses are ostensibly designed around the situations
    where that lens is most prone to flare, and that's going to vary from lens
    to lens. Many photographers would say that you should ALWAYS use a lens
    hood. Because they're kind of a pain, my own approach is to put the things
    on if I'm going to be shooting when the sun might be less that 90 degrees
    off either of the lens axes.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Feb 14, 2005
    #6
  7. One situation where it might be problematical for a lens hood is using a
    polarizing filter that you need to rotate, particularly the lens hood that
    don't have petal shaped indentations. Of course, many of the times I tend to
    use a polarizer tend to be the times when flare is prevalent.
     
    Michael Meissner, Feb 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Toomanyputters

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    [..]
    The hood for Pentax's DA 18-55 comes with a little door you can pop out,
    stick your finger through, and rotate the polarizing filter.
     
    Paul Mitchum, Feb 15, 2005
    #8
  9. Neat idea. I wish more lens makers would copy that.
     
    Michael Meissner, Feb 15, 2005
    #9
  10. Toomanyputters

    Owamanga Guest

    If the hood was made of really flexible rubber, you could just peel it
    back to make any adjustments to the filter.

    I'll name the invention 'Four Skin Hoods'.

    But without a hard plastic hood, you loose it's weapon rating for
    digging other photographers in the back of the head with. I guess some
    sort of retractable pointy stick thing would have to be added to the
    lens instead.
     
    Owamanga, Feb 15, 2005
    #10
  11. Toomanyputters

    Sheldon Guest

    Good idea. Especially when you are a Paparazzi fighting for your territory.
    But seriously, they do make rubber lens hoods that fold back.
     
    Sheldon, Feb 15, 2005
    #11
  12. Toomanyputters

    Owamanga Guest

    Yep, I think I new that. I need to get some. My ones use up too much
    room in the bag.
     
    Owamanga, Feb 15, 2005
    #12
  13. Toomanyputters

    Tumbleweed Guest

    Got rubber hoods on all my lenses - at 5 quid a throw they are a fraction of
    the cost of Canon hoods, push back to adjust filters and absorb shocks a lot
    more effectively than metal or plastic hoods.
     
    Tumbleweed, Feb 15, 2005
    #13
  14. Toomanyputters

    Alan Browne Guest

    Caveat: a rubber hood is less likely to protect the front element if the lens is
    dropped 'lens down'. The rubber hood will absorb 'side' hits to the lens
    better, but it absorbs almost nothing if dropped lens down. Filters, if you use
    them will take the brunt. I don't have a filter mounted by default on my lenses
    when shooting. I prefer a naked lens to one with a UV/or Skylight filter
    (unless it is misty, dusty or snowing).

    A 'stiff' plastic hood will absorb shock pretty well laterally (it's a bit
    flexible), and less if dropped lens element down ... but the lens element is
    less likely to be struck.

    I hope not to start a 'hood war', the above is just my opinion having experience
    with both types of hoods. And there are exceptional cases such as the Maxxum
    28-70 f/2.8 which, given the wide angle, is supplied with a near useless hood.
    (shallow).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 15, 2005
    #14
  15. Nah - that's what monopods are for...
     
    Bob Harrington, Feb 16, 2005
    #15
  16. Hmmm that gives new meaning to the phrase "bayonet mounting".
     
    Michael Meissner, Feb 16, 2005
    #16
    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.