# Are you using lens hoods?



## Rahul (Mar 18, 2015)

I've seen many photographers who attach a protection filter and do not use the lens hood, while there are some who will always use the hoods, filter or no filter. 

Personally, I use the hoods to prevent smudging by hands and also for protection purposes. I don't use filters though (unless it is a CPL). 

Just curious, how many of us in CR space use lens hoods? *If not, what are your reasons for not using the hoods?*


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 18, 2015)

Difficult to select one of those answers.

Indoors, I seldom use the lens hoods. Outdoors, I use them much more often.


----------



## Coldhands (Mar 18, 2015)

I use a hood on all lenses where Canon were generous enough to provide them with the lens purchase.

You may have guessed I use the term _generous_ facetiously. A piece of injection-moulded plastic that probably costs 10 cents to manufacture should not require an additional purchase, and I refuse to pay the exorbitant prices they ask for them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2015)

I use them on _almost_ all lenses. The exceptions are the 40/2.8 and M22/2 pancake lenses, where IMO the hood design is inadequate (based on geometry), and the TS-E 17 which doesn't take a hood. I sometimes do not use the 'hood' for the MP-E 65mm, depending on my lighting setup.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 18, 2015)

Always, except for the 8-15mm, where it prevents you from using the full zoom range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2015)

Coldhands said:


> You may have guessed I use the term _generous_ facetiously. A piece of injection-moulded plastic that probably costs 10 cents to manufacture should not require an additional purchase, and I refuse to pay the exorbitant prices they ask for them.



Maybe the felt flocking is _really_ expensive.


----------



## sunnyVan (Mar 18, 2015)

Never used hoods. Take up too much room. I use filters for protection. But then when shooting into the Sun I take off the filter.


----------



## casperl (Mar 18, 2015)

hard to pick from those answers. I use them more often outdoor. When travelling and space really becomes a concern I usually take them off and just use my hand when flare becomes serious. If the hood doesn't come with the lens I never buy the official Canon hood, just cheap ones on ebay.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Mar 18, 2015)

Depends. Handheld, generally yes (presuming I have brought the hood). On a tripod, not so much. Most often, on a tripod means using a CPL and sometimes an ND, so no hood. And, positioning a hand held flag (by that I mean hat) to shield the end of the lens from the sun usually works.


----------



## lintoni (Mar 18, 2015)

Generally, yes. But there are always exceptions.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 18, 2015)

Always on every lens that has one indoors and outdoors, night and day-except when the camera is sitting on a tripod and I'm putting on and taking off filters (cpl, nd) I can't count the number of times I've banged the lens hood instead of my protective filter. (Protective filter to protect the lens from ME when I clean it, and to complete the weather sealing.)


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 18, 2015)

I always use hoods, as much for protection indoors from banging against stuff (I can get a little preoccupied with the shoot and consequently careless) as outdoors for shielding against stray light sources. Even when a hood isn't expressly needed, I still use it just to reinforce the habit.

I bought Canon-brand hoods for the 85/1.8 I used to own, and for the 35/2 IS I currently own. The only exception is the 50/2.5 CM, for which no hood is available. Canon provided hoods with all the other lenses.

On the other hand, I'm much less likely to use filters. I have CPLs, but rarely use them (don't have the need very often) and UVs for protection from the elements (sand, dust, salt spray, etc.), but again, an infrequent situation for me.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 18, 2015)

Hoods make me look pro and that's good enough for me.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 18, 2015)

I don't know that I've ever hooked a lens hood to any of my lenses...I have a pile of them in the floor in my office, unused.

Never really seen the need for them.


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 18, 2015)

Always, more for added protection than for glare. Even on the 40 pancake, I use just the metal ring from an old rubber hood. It isn't much, but will help deflect the lens away from many potentially damaging objects -- at least that's what I hope.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 18, 2015)

I use hood in all my lenses, and UV filter only the most exposed to liquid and sand. Still wonder why Canon is so petty, to sell your lenses without lens hood (except L lenses).


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I use them on _almost_ all lenses. The exceptions are the 40/2.8 and M22/2 pancake lenses, where IMO the hood design is inadequate (based on geometry),



Huh ? What you on about ? 

(Of course you are correct regarding the Canon supplied hoods; I presume they are a triumph of marketing over practicality). 

I use hoods all the time. Reading the various threads on multicoating and lens hoods I think there is a fair bit of misunderstanding as to what the main function of multicoating on lenses is for. I generally don't use filters, certainly not 'protective' filters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 18, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Still wonder why Canon is so petty, to sell your lenses without lens hood (except L lenses).



Just from having seen innumerable lower priced lenses that come with hoods being used either without them, or with them reversed, leads me to think they are considered insignificant enough by the vast majority of owners so them being including would unnecessarily raise the price for everybody, not just in the actual cost of the hood, but in the packaging and all the other associated costs including them would incur.

But I am a use them all the time person, but I think my fairly blunt and outspoken opinion of that is fairly widely known! Except on the 17TS-E (which can't take one) and the EF-M 22mm because I don't have a hood for it and size is the overwhelming reason I would be using it instead of a FF DSLR with a 35mm lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 18, 2015)

I use BW 007 Clear filter to protect my lenses from dust and water, plus easy cleaning. Lens hood to protect from hard bump. 

Broken hood and scratchy filter are cheaper to replace


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 18, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I use BW 007 Clear filter to protect my lenses from dust and water, plus easy cleaning. Lens hood to protect from hard bump.
> 
> Broken hood and scratchy filter are cheaper to replace



People say this all the time, how many times have you seen scratched modern front elements? I have been hand cleaning my 70-200 f2.8 IS lens for nearly ten years, it has never had a filter on it and has been soaked in sea spray (many times), it has crossed deserts, been rained on more times than I could count and it doesn't have even the smallest mark on it. 

Where are all these damaged front elements to support the $80 a pop 'protective' filters? Besides, there have been many instances of broken filters scratching the front elements when the front element wasn't otherwise damaged, so deduct that number of incidents from the first number, add up the cost of them and deduct the cost of all the filters and, well, you get my opinion on 'protective' filters 

I am not saying don't do it if you want to do it, I am saying I believe it is advice that has long outlived its practical application and is just repeated parrot fashion with no modern risk/benefit calculation analysis behind it. For instance it used to be much more difficult to get lenses repaired (the parts supply) than nowadays, the coatings used to be much less durable and prone to damage from cleaning, and the actual filters used to be much cheaper, that just isn't the case now so I believe the advice isn't valid either.

Just straight maths, if you have three 77mm lenses that is $250 in 'protection' filters, well first off you'd be far better off spending that $250 on an actual insurance policy to cover for other damage as well, and secondly, $250 will get most front elements replaced anyway if you are unlucky enough to damage one, I know that you can get a 17TS-E done for that and that has to be one of the worst.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 18, 2015)

Definitely! Almost always outdoors and sometimes indoors. I don't use UV filters much anymore, so lens hoods are my primary protection for the front element.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 18, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> Never used hoods. Take up too much room. I use filters for protection. But then when shooting into the Sun I take off the filter.


I am the opposite, I use them at all times. I don't want to use my head as of when to and not to use it. So much thing to think about already in photography, whatever I can remove off my brain I do.


----------



## martti (Mar 18, 2015)

You pay a lot of money to get the best of the best of the best and then you spoil the shot with unneeded reflections. It is like buying a Porsche and wearing dried old rubber all around.
Where's the sense?


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 18, 2015)

On all lenses exept for the 40/2.8.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2015)

I can't remember an exception. Always use.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 18, 2015)

I will stop using protective filters, when it is the filter that is holding back the quality of the image and not my technique. ;D

I honestly can't remember the last time I had a reflection in my image due to a filter. But then I seldom shoot directly into the light.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 18, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I will stop using protective filters, when it is the filter that is holding back the quality of the image and not my technique. ;D
> 
> I honestly can't remember the last time I had a reflection in my image due to a filter. But then I seldom shoot directly into the light.



To the first paragraph: There is no one thing holding back your image quality, it is an amalgamation of many little things. Once you get above the level of competent (and we all dip above and below that at times however pompous we might sound  ), there is no single magic bullet improvement http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html you have to focus on the little things and in time the results on screen are just 'better', for no real or singular reason.


To the second paragraph: How would you know? You might notice by the shadows in this with/without example that the sun is around 120º to my left.


----------



## gbchriste (Mar 18, 2015)

Yes. My portrait work is almost always in wooded and natural environments where contact with brush, branches, etc is a constant threat as I move around. I got a pretty good gouge on the hood of my 70-200 2.8L II the very first time I took it out. Based on the position of the mark, it probably would have been the front element that took the hit if I hadn't had the protection. And as I almost always include some type of backlight in each session, the hood is indispensable for cutting down on glare and flare.


----------



## Tsuru (Mar 18, 2015)

I used to use hoods on all my lenses. I had a folding rubber hood for an old Nikkor 50mm that I loved because it was just enough to protect the lens but it was flexible so if someone ran into your camera (more than once ) it wouldn't hurt.
I just looked in my bag and the only hood I have now is for the 24-105mm. I think I've taken all the others out simply because they take up too much room.
The only lenses I use filters for are the ones that need them to complete the weather sealing.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 18, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I use BW 007 Clear filter to protect my lenses from dust and water, plus easy cleaning. Lens hood to protect from hard bump.
> 
> Broken hood and scratchy filter are cheaper to replace


+1, I fully agree


----------



## Viggo (Mar 18, 2015)

Always with any lens. It was early on that the lens hood saved a 2470 mk1 that I dropped, and later the same happened with a 24 L II. I see no reason, for me, not to use them. I also use filters, except the 200 for obvious reasons, because kids


----------



## EdB (Mar 18, 2015)

Always have a hood on, never use filters.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 18, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I use BW 007 Clear filter to protect my lenses from dust and water, plus easy cleaning. Lens hood to protect from hard bump.
> ...


Got your points loud and clear privatebydesign 

Although I haven't run into scratchy issues with my lenses yet, still, I just can't stand wiping off dust, dirty, water or whatever from bare front element. Must prefer clear filter.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 18, 2015)

Hood available to be used 95% of time - sometimes I have a hard time packing the 82mm UWA filter I use for the 21mm lens, so I use my hat to flag if needed.

I have two lenses with retracting integral hoods, two non-filterable UWAs with fixed integral hoods


----------



## Shane1.4 (Mar 18, 2015)

I always use hoods and rarely use filters. I took my hood off my 35mm last summer as I was getting tired off the extra size. Moments later I dropped it on the front element and cracked it. Sigma repaired it no questions asked.


----------



## benique (Mar 18, 2015)

Does it matter what brand you choose for the hoods? Are they all the same or are there some noticeable differences? What brands can you recommend?


----------



## TeT (Mar 19, 2015)

On my SL1 Hoods interfere with the pop up flash, so occasionally when using that camera I have to remove the hood... On my 6D then never come off the lenses


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 19, 2015)

If it came with one, I'll usually use the lens hood: with the exception being the 8-15 fisheye (the hood always comes off). If the lens had not come with the hood, I have not bought the hood separately (non-Ls, EF-M lenses).


----------



## ERHP (Mar 19, 2015)

The only one I don't keep the hood on consistently is the 24-70 II, mainly for the CPL. But it is always in the bag. Sometimes where the hood would create a shadow, the 100mm goes hoodless as well but overall they stay on everything.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 19, 2015)

On pretty much every lens, filter plus hood. Hood is for stray light and better micro contrast. 
One exception is the MP-E 65. If you put a hood on it, you can't get light on the subject. The macro-flash bracket sort of is like a hoodie, but has very different function. No filter on that one either.
The other exception is the rectangular fisheye (F-Distagon 16 mm C/Y), no front filter possible (has some rear filters built in), so only "hood".
For the 300/2.8, no front filter (unless you consider the font element the filter), but then the hood.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Mar 19, 2015)

I was shooting a hockey game and I "threw" my camera and it landed on the concrete. Besides a few scratches on the body, its like nothing ever happened to my lens. Granted I was stupid and didn't wear my camera strap. ;D Hoods are good. Filters... maybe for a dirty environment.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 19, 2015)

benique said:


> Does it matter what brand you choose for the hoods?


yes! because of quality.


> Are they all the same or are there some noticeable differences?


There are differences in quality 
- mechanically: does it fit tight, does it shake, does the mechanism hold out a few hundred mounting/unmounting cylces
- optically: is the inner surface shiny (bad) or matted (good), how is the matting done, varnish (good) or flocking (better), does the flocking hold or flake off, etc.
and higher quality means higher price.


> What brands can you recommend?


None! I use original parts so no experience with others.


----------



## TheJock (Mar 19, 2015)

Living in Dubai, with 364 ½ days of sunshine per year I use them on all except the Macro and the 50mm f1.4, they’re a must out here! 8)


----------



## rs (Mar 19, 2015)

Hood and filter are a permanent feature on all my lenses, with two exceptions - the hood comes off the 100L as/when is needed at closer working distances, and the 40/2.8 is so compact and cheap that a filter or a hood go against its ethos.


----------



## edurieux (Mar 19, 2015)

I always use lens hoods.

It protect a little of dust, and a lot of hard bumps. It saved a few of my L lenses...


----------



## pwp (Mar 19, 2015)

Skimming through the posts here, it tends to look like the photographers who shoot the most tend to use hoods. Stop and think why? 

Far more than simply lens shades, they're functional shock absorbers and front element protectors. Period.

-pw


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 19, 2015)

I use them on all my lenses other then the pancake lenses I own. I like to shoot with a shoulder/messenger style bag. Using lens hoods lets me feel comfortable enough to not use front lens caps. So it is much quicker to swap a lens (often a prime) while shooting.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 19, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> Never used hoods. Take up too much room. I use filters for protection. But then when shooting into the Sun I take off the filter.



Yep, same here.
I'm often out with my 5D3 and my sling bag, I'm loaded often with the camera and my lenses which I often carry:
24-105 f4
70-200L f2.8
rokinon 14mm
17-40L f4

I might take my light meter in there too and possibly the 40mm pancake....at this point, I'm FULL with no room or way to carry lens hoods.


----------



## LarryC (Mar 19, 2015)

When the lens came with a hood and I'm shooting outdoors and there's bright sun somewhere and I'm not using a CPL and I was able to fit it in my bag. Otherwise, no.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Mar 19, 2015)

When hiking, yes. Indoors, probably not except for sports or anything where looking through a camera may distract me from seeing something flying at me or my camera - plus the occasions that I have shot sports, sometimes you have to dive out of the way quickly... that hood gives me a little comfort that I can swing the camera to the side and move quickly and hope to not jar the front element on something unfriendly. (I don't shoot a lot of sports, so this is a bit moot).

The "extra" level of protection from bumps etc is the primary reason. I rarely use filters except ND or CPL. Plus, and I'm ashamed to admit this, it gives me a little comfort when I have to set my camera down to tie a shoe or take a wiz that I can set it down without any real fear for something touching the front element - either sharp and hard (sand/gravel/rocks) that might scratch it, or soft/gooey (wet grass, dirt, mud, slugs etc) that would smear it up. 

I'm 50/50 on using a clear filter for protection... seems like some of my kit it doesn't make a difference image-wise, while others it does. (Mk1 100-400L for example). It sure does make for some pretty flare when you shoot towards the sun though when you use a clear filter... especially a cheap one - "for protection only".


----------



## cayenne (Mar 24, 2015)

So, I take it when ya'll are out and about carrying the camera and all these lens hoods, you're *NOT* carrying multiple lenses at the same time?

I just don't see how you could carry much when out and about if you include the hoods. As I mentioned before, I have a nice sized sling bag, but when I fill it with my lenses, there is NO room for hoods too. I could only get maybe half the number of lenses in there if all had hoods included...?


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 24, 2015)

cayenne said:


> So, I take it when ya'll are out and about carrying the camera and all these lens hoods, you're *NOT* carrying multiple lenses at the same time?
> 
> I just don't see how you could carry much when out and about if you include the hoods. As I mentioned before, I have a nice sized sling bag, but when I fill it with my lenses, there is NO room for hoods too. I could only get maybe half the number of lenses in there if all had hoods included...?



Don't ask me. I tend to be out and about with just one or two prime lenses, or just one zoom and that's it  If you are shooting across the (strong) light source hoods make a huge difference, and who's to know what your shooting orientation could be ?


----------



## lintoni (Mar 24, 2015)

cayenne said:


> So, I take it when ya'll are out and about carrying the camera and all these lens hoods, you're *NOT* carrying multiple lenses at the same time?
> 
> I just don't see how you could carry much when out and about if you include the hoods. As I mentioned before, I have a nice sized sling bag, but when I fill it with my lenses, there is NO room for hoods too. I could only get maybe half the number of lenses in there if all had hoods included...?


When I go hiking, I normally take 3 zooms (17-40, 24-105, 100-400) and one or two of the primes (depending on what I think I might come across) and I take the lens hoods. I'll also be carrying a Lee filter system, tripod, maybe a Speedlite, food, drinks, extra clothing...


----------



## cayenne (Mar 24, 2015)

lintoni said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > So, I take it when ya'll are out and about carrying the camera and all these lens hoods, you're *NOT* carrying multiple lenses at the same time?
> ...


Wow!!

That sounds like a LOT to be hauling around on your back....

Or, you must be in really PRIME condition!!


----------



## NancyP (Mar 24, 2015)

Zeidora, there is a lens hood specifically designed for the MP-E 65, but it is very odd-looking. The hood is very short, and the walls taper inward markedly. Most people go to great lengths to diffuse their light source, so I don't imagine that directional flare is much of a problem in real life.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2015)

cayenne said:


> So, I take it when ya'll are out and about carrying the camera and all these lens hoods, you're *NOT* carrying multiple lenses at the same time?
> 
> I just don't see how you could carry much when out and about if you include the hoods. As I mentioned before, I have a nice sized sling bag, but when I fill it with my lenses, there is NO room for hoods too. I could only get maybe half the number of lenses in there if all had hoods included...?



Interesting. I have many (many!) packs and bags, and in no case do the reversed hoods (for most lenses, stored separately for UWAs) impact the number of lenses that fit in the bag.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 24, 2015)

I use them most of the time, but the tamron 24-70 VC hood is garbage. It's very loose and any little bump on the hood will cover part of the frame, so I try to avoid using that one on purpose.


----------



## scott_m (Mar 24, 2015)

There are only 2 lenses I use regularly hoods on - the 135/2L and 70-200/4L IS, and then it's only when shooting rockets in flight, since while I always *start* facing the same direction, I often end up aiming somewhere totally different (especially for shots "under the 'chute"). Also they're of such a shape/size that getting them in and out of a holster bag with the hood reversed is unnoticeable. 

Otherwise I just use a hand!


----------



## sdsr (Mar 25, 2015)

Always, if the lens came with it, and if it didn't I'll usually buy one unless the front element is sufficiently recessed that the front of the lens acts as a built-in hood (e.g. Nikon 55mm mf macro) or it's an old lens and there's none readily available, in which case I use a hand to prevent flare etc. (I use them on bodies with EVFs so it's really easy to tell when you need it and where you need to put your hand); some of those are so cheap it makes no sense to buy filters/hoods to protect them.

What I don't get are all those people out there (and there are lots of them, often with fancy gear) who keep the hoods on their lenses, but reversed, regardless of the light; what's the point? (Reminds me a bit of men who buy sport jackets and overcoats and don't remove the stitching holding the flaps together.)


----------



## Joe M (Mar 25, 2015)

I use them all of the time on all of my lenses. At least I think so. It's become such a habit that I can't remember the last time I didn't pop one on.


----------



## Phenix205 (Mar 25, 2015)

Always outdoor, almost never indoor when shooting videos especially for 70-200 II whose hood is too big.


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2015)

Usually on all unless I'm using a filter system or macro.


----------



## greger (Mar 25, 2015)

When I bought my 40D I shot without a lens hood on my 17-85 kit lens. I bought a lens hood after shooting without one for a month or two. I always put a lens hood on my lenses because I don't want a shot ruined by flair.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 25, 2015)

Always, it serves a purpose and helps protect the lens.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 25, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Zeidora, there is a lens hood specifically designed for the MP-E 65, but it is very odd-looking. The hood is very short, and the walls taper inward markedly. Most people go to great lengths to diffuse their light source, so I don't imagine that directional flare is much of a problem in real life.


Hi Nancy (again)! thank for that pointer. I had not been aware of that hood, but will get it. I fully agree on diffused light. Have lately been twisting the MT24EX heads mounted on Wimberley plamps away from the subject onto white card board. Works quite well. The purpose of the hood is not only for direct flare, but for better overall contrast and color with fully diffused light.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 25, 2015)

cayenne said:


> So, I take it when ya'll are out and about carrying the camera and all these lens hoods, you're *NOT* carrying multiple lenses at the same time?


Usually I carry body, nine primes mostly with filters and hood, two flashes, diffusors/reflectors, tripod, pol, NDs, water, food. It's about 40 lb. LF with about 6 lenses (one triple convertible) starts at 50 lb without water. Usually don't walk more than 5 miles in a day; I'm slow.
And, yes, I do work out.


----------



## steven kessel (Mar 25, 2015)

I have hoods on all of my lenses except for my 18-35 f4 L IS. On that one, which is dedicated to landscapes, I have a polarizing filter.


----------



## Zv (Mar 25, 2015)

Not all lenses. The 17-40L lens hood is all but useless. I've decided to simply leave it behind. Also my EF M 22mm lens has no lens hood but it does have a clear protector filter on it permanently. I also don't have hoods for my FD lenses.


----------

