# Does anyone use the lens hood on their 35/1.4L? Or any other lens?



## birdman (Apr 18, 2012)

I was shooting an old abandoned school building about 1.5 hours before sundown the other day. I do NOT have the lens hood for my 35L, as it was bought second hand. But I do have a nice polarizer, which I thought would help reduce sunlight. Keep in mind I was shooting away from the sun, with the only reflection coming off windows on the building. Lots of my shots (taken with 5d2) have stray light screwing up the exposure. Aggravating to say the least. I tried to bracket them, but could not get correct exposure. 

Does the lens hood make THAT much of a difference? I also have the 28-135 and 17-40, neither lens hood with those either. What would you guys suggest? Are the hoods worth the money?


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 18, 2012)

That seems odd behaviour for a lens that usually handles flare well. Any idea what the flare source was if not the sun or noticeable reflections?

I use the hood when doing most landscapes, as they often contain water or reflective glass or other surfaces on buildings, but shoot without in the street, where I use it most.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 18, 2012)

Can you post examples?

I never shoot without a lens hood. And even so I've had to hold my hand up to block the sun in where it's not in the frame but the front element outside the protection of the hood. Mainly is a problem on 24mm shots with my 24-70mm.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 18, 2012)

Hard to say. Maybe it was the lack of a lens hood, maybe it was the polarizer not playing nice with the lens/camera. I've seen samples of that before where non-circular polarizers cause some weird artifacts with digital SLRs.

I pretty much always leave the lens hoods on all my lenses - for physical protection alone.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 18, 2012)

As mentioned. Examples will give you a way better answer. Post them to flikr or something.

I use a lens hood as much as I can. The protection to the lens in a fall alone is worth it. Buy a cheap ebay $5 replacement hood. 

Even if you use a UV filterer other, a hood can help. he biggest problem with filters is they let light bounce around between the filter and lens, ussually from an out of camera light soucre. Hoods often fix that. And in a fall do you want your filter smashed, with broken glass pushed against you lens, or protected by a hood?


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 18, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> I've seen samples of that before where non-circular polarizers cause some weird artifacts with digital SLRs.



Also if it was a cheap polarizer. I've gotten terrible glare from a cheap UV filter. Always good not to skimp on the filters.


----------



## Seanlucky (Apr 18, 2012)

I'd say always use a lens hood for the protective purposes. I've seen them save lenses from a drop.


----------



## JR (Apr 18, 2012)

I only use them if i shoot outside in the sun or when i need some protection for the lens...


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 18, 2012)

yes. get yourself the hood. The hoods for the ultra wides like 17-40 are a pain to carry in the bag...but at least I only have one of those to accommodate. I don't think I will use the hood that came with my 24mm f/3.5L TS-E II lens. It is not very substantial and cannot imagine it helps that much.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2012)

Always always always use a lens hood. No excuses.


----------



## pwp (Apr 19, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Always always always use a lens hood. No excuses.



Yes, what Preston said. Always, always & always. 

If for absolutely no other reason the hood offers your lens about the best protection you can offer it in the form of a shock absorbing buffer that may save your lens in tthe unlikely case of a drop or a far more likely hard bump when you have your body/lens on your shoulder and the rig swings into an immovable object. If you shoot a lot, particularly when shooting with multiple bodies and you're very focused on your work on you'll quickly find this happens a LOT.

Always, always always....

Paul Wright


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 19, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Can you post examples?
> 
> I never shoot without a lens hood. And even so I've had to hold my hand up to block the sun in where it's not in the frame but the front element outside the protection of the hood. Mainly is a problem on 24mm shots with my 24-70mm.


Odd, the 24-70 has one of the best lens hoods, imo... 

that said, i think its the polarizer, not the lack of hood thats causing the issue, any problems when shooting without a filter?


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 19, 2012)

I don't use them, I haven't seen where it could be effecting image quality, but it might be. For me it makes the cameras way too big. I'll probably try them out more in the future. The other day I had a harsh flare coming in on a 16-35 lens, it took about 20 seconds to figure out how to hold my hand to the side of the lens without getting it in the picture as a blocker for the harsh highlight, not sure if any less harsh flare saturated the contrast of the image at all, or beyond what couldn't easily be tweaked in editing. If I had the hood with me, it would have made for a good test.


----------



## mws (Apr 19, 2012)

I always use a hood, keeps my greasy fingers away from the font element. And I don’t use filters so it helps if I accidently drop it or something. 

You can get knock off filters  hoods on eBay for dirt cheap with free shipping. Some of the ones I have ordered are of surprisingly good quality for what I paid for them. 

Update, I meant cheap hoods, not filters. I know better then that.....


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 19, 2012)

mws said:


> I always use a hood, keeps my greasy fingers away from the font element. And I don’t use filters so it helps if I accidently drop it or something.
> 
> You can get knock off filters on eBay for dirt cheap with free shipping. Some of the ones I have ordered are of surprisingly good quality for what I paid for them.




Uh, strongly suggest against getting cheap, knock off filters. IQ degradation will kill you, and if you're getting an L lens for better image quality, then put a cheap filter on and knock it back down to the quality of an inferior lens, all you have is an expensive inferior lens that has better build


----------



## Heavyweight67 (Apr 19, 2012)

Always, if my lens is on the camera the lens hood is fitted, day or night (in the correct way, not reversed) always use Hoya HD filters as well...
I live in a busy city, the lens hood has taken quite a few knocks, seems to work as a nice buffer...also it is generally 90-95% sunny all year here, generally a harsh sunlight.
I always use clear UV filters, I'm not sure what it is, but almost everyday (after shooting) I have to clean off a flim of something/whatever, I assume it's due to the humidity and standard city dust/pollution.
I figure in the long run it is safer to be able to replace a filter than a front element..


----------



## telephonic (Apr 19, 2012)

Why not? I mean it sure increases your coolness to lvl 99. 8)

On the serious note, I use the hood on 200mm/2.8. It's a telephoto lens which, I suppose, is less prone to flare so I use it mostly for physical protection. Back then, I used my Pop's old Sigma 28-200 with and without the provided hood (it's a diminutive one, I assure you). The difference in IQ? Dusk and night. HTH.


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 19, 2012)

I just did several quick tests (bright daylight) with a 24-70L MKI on a Canon 7D, with and without the lens hood it came with. Image quality appears identical viewing on the back of the camera fully zoomed in. The frames both have the same exposure, so the hood isn't degrading IQ at all, but this lens also isn't getting any stray light that is fading the picture without the hood. Sharpness looked identical in both pictures. Seems more for protection and to eliminate harsh (halo like) flare? I think I'll continue on without it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 19, 2012)

Hoods can be useful if the sun is just outside the frame. I usually use them if I'm ouside. I was shooting inside and moved outside without the hood and got a couple washed out pics. Added the hood, and it helped a lot with contrast.

I see that nearly everyone here agrees that hoods should be used at all times, but what happens when using a CP or a filter with a step up ring? Do you get NDs for all filter sizes for your lenses? Do they interfere with hoods?


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 19, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> I see that nearly everyone here agrees that hoods should be used at all times, but what happens when using a CP or a filter with a step up ring? Do you get NDs for all filter sizes for your lenses? Do they interfere with hoods?



I have started using screw-on hoods so I can just put them on outside the filter. Still playing with the method but seems to work pretty well so far.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 19, 2012)

I always use the hood, even just for the physical protection.


----------



## iaind (Apr 19, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> I always use the hood, even just for the physical protection.



Ditto though 8-15 can be a pain


----------



## El_Pickerel (Apr 19, 2012)

Always use my hoods... the noble sacrifice of my 70-200's hood protected the front element from a fall nose-down onto a boulder when it came off a loose strap, and deflected a dodgeball on another occasion.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

Hooded protection always. Better contrast on sunny days too. Helps kill flare. One of my shooters just got a 24-70 and was shooting finishline and didn't think it important to have the hood, well he sat there with his hand above the lens for a long time before i just took mine off and gave it to him since i wasn't fighting the sun like him. It was last may around 10/11am.
I am just saying what everyone else is saying. Use the hood. On filters, You don't put cheap filter glass over the best glass made, its like some kind of sin.  I don't have filters on my lenses. If you have to have a filter get a brand like B+W filters they are the highest quality German made glass.


----------



## LIsnap (Apr 20, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> I always use the hood, even just for the physical protection.



+1


----------



## re:k photographie (Apr 21, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Always always always use a lens hood. No excuses.



I would even add one more always....


----------



## winoheel (Apr 21, 2012)

....all hoods...all times...


----------



## ronderick (Apr 23, 2012)

I'd rather the hood take the damage when moving among crowds. At least replacing the hood is a lot more affordable than replacing the lens.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 23, 2012)

Use a hood 100% of the time if you can. Simple as that.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2012)

Yes, Unless i need to use a matte box, Which is just a fancy lens hood. 8)


----------



## Meh (Apr 26, 2012)

Totally agree with all of you who said always use a lens hood... it can only help but never hurt. The main purpose is to block light that is outside the FoV of the the lens (i.e. not supposed to be part of your image but might enter the lens and degrade IQ (particularly reducing contrast). The added benefit is the excellent protection it offers in the event the lens is bumped, banged, bonked, or dropped.

As for the comments about using filters to reduce flare or not needing a hood because you use filters... I don't think that's correct... filters tend to increase flare. CPL filters will reduce reflections from surfaces such as glass or water that are in your FoV but that has nothing to do with what a hood does.... the hood blocks light rays that are outside the FoV.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 26, 2012)

Always use a lens hood. I figure someone should mention that in this thread...


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 26, 2012)

I always use the hood on my 14mm f/2.8L I. 

The best hood, however, is the one on the 300mm f/4L IS: just slide it back and forth. (The rumored Mark II version better have it!)


----------



## t.linn (Apr 26, 2012)

The lens hood on my 24-105 saved it from complete destruction during one unfortunate incident. The only hood I ever leave at home is the one that goes on my 24mm tilt-shift. I'm not convinced it does much to improve either IQ or protection and it is a real hassle to pack.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 26, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> I always use the hood on my 14mm f/2.8L I.
> 
> The best hood, however, is the one on the 300mm f/4L IS: just slide it back and forth. (The rumored Mark II version better have it!)



Ok now really... what does the 14mm f/2.8 lens hood do? For the record I always run it anyway because it looks COOL 8). But in all seriousness, I can't see how a lens hood on the 14mm does anything at all since the front element obviously bulges beyond the hood itself. So it doesn't block any light and it doesn't protect the front element for the most part (additionally since filters will not fit).

The lens hood on my 50mm f/1.2L did save the lens once when it accidentally fell out of my camera bag and hit hard tile flooring. The lens hood absorbed the impact (cracked) but the lens was unharmed and was verified when I took it in to Canon service to get it checked out. The lens hood was in storage position (as opposed to shooting position) when this happened. Thank god for lens hoods!


----------



## Act444 (Apr 26, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> I always use the hood, even just for the physical protection.



Same here.


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 26, 2012)

Act444 said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > I always use the hood, even just for the physical protection.
> ...



+1


----------



## xROELOFx (Apr 26, 2012)

ksuweh said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...


+1 (lt's start another +1 pyramide ;D)


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 26, 2012)

xROELOFx said:


> ksuweh said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...


+1


----------



## mistabernie (Apr 26, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> xROELOFx said:
> 
> 
> > ksuweh said:
> ...



I almost always do, unless my hoods aren't on me for some reason.


----------

