# Do you use the lenshood on the 100-400mm II?



## AlanF (Mar 12, 2015)

I have yet to put the lenshood on my 100-400mm II, and just have a Marumi filter for protection. As a matter of interest, do others us the hood - I haven't had any problems with flare yet? I always have the hood on my 300/2.8, just for lens protection.


----------



## Rahul (Mar 12, 2015)

Yes, I always have the lens hood on the 100-400II. Even for storage, the lens hood is attached in reverse. 

I think the hood does a great job in protecting the lens. 

BTW, I never use a protection/clear/uv filter on any of my lenses.


----------



## madspihl (Mar 15, 2015)

I don't. I am often forced to quickly swap between two body+lens combos, a 5DIII and the 100-400II being one of them, and the time it takes to fit the hood / the extra space needed in the bag to keep it attached is does not justify it for me. 

Also - have anyone noticed how the side window for adjusting filters is very loose? It seems to be forever open when I reach for the hood, even if I stored it in the bag closed... I know 50% of this is just the randomness of stuff, like cords getting tangled when you look away, but the other 50% seems to be a design thing.


----------



## candyman (Mar 15, 2015)

I use a B+W nano clear protectionfilter. 
I use the lenshood when using the lens on the beach and with sunny days
I noticed too that the CPOL adjustment window on the lenshood is too smooth. It often opens by itself. Good that I am using the protectionfilter.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Mar 15, 2015)

Generally, I keep the hood on the lens for added protection of the front element(s). I am not a pro shooter, so my need to make rapid lens changes is not as critical as those that make your livings shooting. When hanging on my side from BR strap, it can move around and always better safe than sorry, which is why I have protective filters on all of my lenses, too. Always stored with the hood in reverse position. Have not had any issues with the access panel, but who knows down the road...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2015)

I always use the hood on almost all my lenses, the only exceptions are the two pancake lenses (EF 40/2.8, EF-M 22/2) for which the design isn't at all effective (based in geometry, no flare protection).

I don't yet have a 100-400 II, but I'll use the hood if I get one.


----------



## FEBS (Mar 15, 2015)

I use the hoods on all my lenses all the time. Previously, I placed a protectionfilter on the lens. The last year, I don't use the protectionfilter anymore unless extreme conditions like sand and salt. When there is sufficient of light I mostly use a CPL.

My practice showed me that a lens hood might give a better protection. And damage to a CPL is not that cheap, a good CPL like B&W or Singh-Ray is not being used as any kind of protection for my lens. So then the hood stays the easy way to protect from direct damage to the frontglass.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 15, 2015)

I'm with Neuro and candyman.

BW 007 clear filter as front protection from dust and water - easy cleaning. I use lens hoods to protect my lenses from hard bump.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I have yet to put the lenshood on my 100-400mm II, and just have a Marumi filter for protection. As a matter of interest, do others us the hood - I haven't had any problems with flare yet? I always have the hood on my 300/2.8, just for lens protection.



How do you know you haven't had any problems with flare yet, have you done comparison shots?

For what its worth, and each to their own, I always use hoods and very rarely use 'protective' filters.

Here is a with and without 'protective' filter.


----------



## madspihl (Mar 15, 2015)

I am definitely with you on why it makes sense to use the hood - it just doesn't always make practical sense to try and attach the hood on a job (on a dogsled, for instance) if you have to swap field of view (from 24-70 to 100-40, for instance). Especially not if the trip is an overnight journey leaving no extra room in the bag for big lens compartments.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2015)

madspihl said:


> I am definitely with you on why it makes sense to use the hood - it just doesn't always make practical sense to try and attach the hood on a job (on a dogsled, for instance) if you have to swap field of view (from 24-70 to 100-40, for instance). Especially not if the trip is an overnight journey leaving no extra room in the bag for big lens compartments.



So space permits bringing a 24-70 and a 100-400 (instead of, say, a 28-300), but not the lens hoods? Ummmmm...ok. Not to mention that dogsleds tend to travel on this stuff that's really, really bright and reflective, a situation that's very conducive to flare which a hood is designed to mitigate.


----------



## 20Dave (Mar 15, 2015)

Rahul said:


> BTW, I never use a protection/clear/uv filter on any of my lenses.



I went from a cheap filter (big mistake) to no filter to a good filter. I couldn't figure out why my pictures weren't sharp until I did some testing with/without the cheap filter. See below for my very unscientific test (taken on two different days as I was diagnosing the lack of sharpness - 20D, 100% crop) on the 400 f/5.6 prime. This only shows cheap filter vs. no filter. I can't really notice a difference with/without a filter once I moved to a better one. 

Moral of the story - if you use a filter, don't skimp.

And, I always use the lens hood on my 400 prime, but since it's always on the lens ready to go, it really doesn't answer the OP's original question. Too bad that the new 100-400 can't use the same mechanism. Hopefully they'll keep it if they come out with the rumored 400 f/5.6 II.

Dave


----------



## LDS (Mar 15, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I haven't had any problems with flare yet?



There's lens flare and camera flare - the latter is independent from what lens you use - and the origin is always unwanted light entering the camera. It can decrease contrast, or make the image "foggy", in the worst case. You should try to make some pictures in some unfavorable light conditions, with and without hood, and check the result. Hood can also protect the lens, but they are not designed with that in mind, or there would be any need to be so deep (for a tele), but they should be sturdier  Anyway, they fit that purpose too, and not always a filter is enough. It's a matter of actual needs and convenience, light conditions, shooting conditions, etc. etc. 
Anyway, that's why I like the built-in hoods of some lenses...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet to put the lenshood on my 100-400mm II, and just have a Marumi filter for protection. As a matter of interest, do others us the hood - I haven't had any problems with flare yet? I always have the hood on my 300/2.8, just for lens protection.
> ...



I use the 100-400mm for bird photography, and I shoot with the sun behind me for optimal results and never into the sun. I have done comparisons with filter on and off, and find no discernible degradation of the image.

For what it is worth, according to Canon: "The new Air Sphere Coating has been developed by Canon to minimise reflections and flare. It consists of tiny nano particles of air trapped in a film above the conventional multi-layer coatings. These Air Sphere particles form a super low reflective coating on the surface of the lens element to reduce reflection and act as a ‘crash mat’ to reduce the speed that light travels through the layer so there is not such a large change in speed when the light enters through the glass of the lens element. The major cause of reflections is the sudden change in the speed of light as it passes from air to glass, and this new technology prevents the cause of visible ghosting and flare." 

The new lens is certainly better than the Mark 1.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1


----------



## Freddie (Mar 15, 2015)

Lens hoods are always on unless the sun is down and swing room is tight. I may leave the hood off in the blind in Nebraska for the Sandhill Cranes next week. The sun is more or less behind the blind and the view port is rather limiting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2015)

AlanF said:


> For what it is worth, according to Canon: "The new Air Sphere Coating has been developed by Canon to minimise reflections and flare. It consists of tiny nano particles of air trapped in a film above the conventional multi-layer coatings. These Air Sphere particles form a super low reflective coating on the surface of the lens element to reduce reflection and act as a ‘crash mat’ to reduce the speed that light travels through the layer so there is not such a large change in speed when the light enters through the glass of the lens element. The major cause of reflections is the sudden change in the speed of light as it passes from air to glass, and this new technology prevents the cause of visible ghosting and flare."



For what it is worth, according to Canon: "Ultrasonic motor (USM) for quick and quiet autofocusing," is stated in the description of the 85L II. Quick? Perhaps compared to the movement of glaciers and the growth of sequoias.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 15, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Yes, I always have the lens hood on the 100-400II. Even for storage, the lens hood is attached in reverse.
> 
> I think the hood does a great job in protecting the lens.
> 
> BTW, I never use a protection/clear/uv filter on any of my lenses.



I have the same routine. A filter, even the best ones, is degrading the picture quality.
To not use the hood is also degrading the picture quality.
The hood also protest the front lens element.

I can't see any reason to not use the hood and use a filter instead. It is stupid really.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > For what it is worth, according to Canon: "The new Air Sphere Coating has been developed by Canon to minimise reflections and flare. It consists of tiny nano particles of air trapped in a film above the conventional multi-layer coatings. These Air Sphere particles form a super low reflective coating on the surface of the lens element to reduce reflection and act as a ‘crash mat’ to reduce the speed that light travels through the layer so there is not such a large change in speed when the light enters through the glass of the lens element. The major cause of reflections is the sudden change in the speed of light as it passes from air to glass, and this new technology prevents the cause of visible ghosting and flare."
> ...



Canon's statement on flare is backed up for the 100-400mm in the link to TDP I included in my post. 

As it is "stupid" according to the last post to use a filter, would everyone who owns B+W filters please send them to me - I'll pay for the postage - as giving them up will obviously make you smart.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 15, 2015)

I have mostly kept the hood on my lens. I do not use it to protect the front element but to help with stray light. Coatings are very good, but not perfect.


I avoid using protective filters, but will use them if I think there is a dust storm coming.

Its pretty much a matter of choice, if your photos are with the sun at your back, its probably not going to be a issue unless there are reflections to block.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2015)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



In fact, given that there is flare clearly visible in the TDP shot with the 100-400 II, I'd say that the link to TDP actually demonstrates quite nicely that Canon's statement is false.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 16, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm with Neuro and candyman.
> 
> BW 007 clear filter as front protection from dust and water - easy cleaning. I use lens hoods to protect my lenses from hard bump.


+1
I see no reason not to use it. No need for filters.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2015)

I too have had an issue with the 100-400 II hood. I like to use hoods rather than filters when I can, but I've taken to leaving my 100-400 II hood at home and use the hood I have from my 70-200, which fits nicely and doesn't have that little window in it that I keep finding open whenever I bother to look. 

I want to state clearly that I really appreciate Canon innovating by making that little window, but they just didn't quite get it right. I have to use a little piece of tape to keep the window closed, especially as it gets dragged in and out of a bag. In the time it takes to move the tape, I could have adjusted my polarizing filter by reaching around.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 16, 2015)

I always use the hood on almost all my lenses except when the lens doesn't fit in the bag with the hood attached in reverse position. It helps protecting the front element of the lens besides protecting from flare.

The 100-400 II is in my wishlist, but I'll use the hood when I get one.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 16, 2015)

For the violently anti-protective-filter advocates: "Chuck Westfall of Canon USA has confirmed that a filter is required for full sealing of this lens." (TDP).


----------



## AlanF (Mar 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The word "prevent" has shades of meaning, from completely stopping to merely hindering. E.g.,

"Prevent" verb (used with object)
1.
to keep from occurring; avert; hinder:
He intervened to prevent bloodshed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prevent

See also definition 4 in Merriam http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prevent

4: to hold or keep back : hinder, stop 

In conventional English, you would say "prevent completely" to emphasize 100%. 

Canon has greatly decreased flare by their new coatings to the point whereas the sun washed out the whole frame when actually appearing in the corner of the frame of the old 100-400mm, it causes very minor ghosting in the Mk II. It certainly has hindered or held back flare, and I don't think you could legally sue them over their statement being untrue.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 16, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> I too have had an issue with the 100-400 II hood. I like to use hoods rather than filters when I can, but I've taken to leaving my 100-400 II hood at home and use the hood I have from my 70-200, which fits nicely and doesn't have that little window in it that I keep finding open whenever I bother to look.
> 
> I want to state clearly that I really appreciate Canon innovating by making that little window, but they just didn't quite get it right. I have to use a little piece of tape to keep the window closed, especially as it gets dragged in and out of a bag. In the time it takes to move the tape, I could have adjusted my polarizing filter by reaching around.



How can you see through your hand to judge the effects of the CP??? Are you just imagining?


----------



## weixing (Mar 16, 2015)

Hi,
I always use with the hood and a good protection filter. The protection filter is basically for peace of mind when cleaning and of course when you do birding, "something" might just drop down from above and shit happens.... ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Thanks for the unnecessary English lesson. In conventional English, to prevent means to stop, to keep from happening. In the scientific literature, which generally attempts to be more precise than lay writing, when 'prevent' is qualified it is generally negatory, as in 'does not completely prevent'...because prevent means stop. Certainly, words can have shades of meaning...but highlighting the tertiary or quaternary meaning and suggesting that is the primary definition is not consistent with how dictionaries are written. 

I have no intention of suing Canon. My point was that your implication that Canon's new air sphere coating obviates the use of the lens hood is untenable. Having supported my point with evidence which _you_ provided, further discussion on the matter would be as superfluously redundant as the phrase 'completely prevent'.


----------



## Joey (Mar 16, 2015)

I always use my 100-400 II with its hood. Currently I also have a protective filter attached but I 'm wondering if I'm degrading its performance. My protective filter is an expensive one but it doesn't have Canon's new coatings. Some of Canon's new coatings are only effective on the outer element - which in my case is the filter, which doesn't have them...

I use hoods with all my lenses except the pancake. Protective filters with most, most of the time.


----------



## Vern (Mar 16, 2015)

I always use the hoods for my lenses and no 'protective' filter unless the environment is very abrasive (blowing sand and surf etc.). I can't see routinely introducing another optical element unless it adds something - like a CP. More recent lenses have a 'fluorine' coating (I assume this mean a fluorocarbon coating, as fluorine is a toxic gas) that makes cleaning very easy anyway. Additionally, all the most expensive glass doesn't accept a front filter anyway, so why not get used to going commando? (but with hood in place).


----------



## CurtL5 (Mar 16, 2015)

Because I shoot mostly sports with this lens and I'm constantly swinging it around through different sunlight angles, I leave the hood on always. I also use a good filter since I'm often a belt n' suspenders kind of guy.

Interested to hear of the filter door regularly opening itself. Glad to know I'm not the only one!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 16, 2015)

Hi Neuro
I am sharing this snippet just as a matter of interest, not to press a point. I dined this evening with an etymologist who told me that the origin of "prevent" is "to act in anticipation of" - see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prevent for the Latin root.


----------



## eos650 (Mar 16, 2015)

I don't have the 100-400 II, but will say that I always use a hood. This is more for the protection of the lens than anything else. In the past I often went without a hood, due to the size of the hoods and the fact that I couldn't fit as much in my bag.

One day I was shooting a basketball game, sitting on the floor and using two camera's. One of my cameras slipped from my leg and on to the floor. I had a UV filter on the lens for added protection. The edge of the UV filter hit the floor and bent and shattered. In the process, the front element of my 70-200L got some slight scratches. Had I had a hood, I most likely would have not suffered any damage.

Since that time, I have removed the UV filters from all of my lenses and always use a hood.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2015)

Thanks, Alan – good stuff!


----------



## mycanonphotos (Mar 16, 2015)

I use the hood all the time. Same goes for all my others (filters vary)
1. For added protection against the various elements
2. Flare protection
3. Hood always remains on in reverse when in storage
4. Filter I use with it...the HOYA EVO Antistatic UV Filter


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 16, 2015)

I had to go check the little door on my hood to see if it stayed closed. I played with it a while, but could not get it to open buy itself. Then I took it off the lens and banged it on the table pretty firmly. It opened just a sliver, but more banging had little or no effect. Then, I really pounded it hard, and it opened half way, and after a couple more hard tries, it was completely opened.

If I were to hit my camera or lens that hard, it would likely be damaged, so I think my hood is OK.

For those with a issue, Contact Canon and ask for a replacement. See what they say and let us know. I suspect that different people will get different responses.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2015)

I think here in Canada we're more likely to say "completely prevent". 

Jack


----------



## Houndog (Mar 19, 2015)

I always use lens hood with my 100-400 II. It looks like protective filter may slightly affect sharpness so, in some circumstances, I will remove protective filter.


----------

