# KUVRD launches the world’s first Universal Lens Hood, and it’s pretty cool.



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 16, 2020)

> The Universal Lens Hood is the world’s first all-fitting, multi-functional lens hood that’s easy to pack, install and use.
> It’s designed to fit over 99% of camera lenses and remain compatible with any lens’ focal length/range without creating vignetting in the corners of the frame, which means less gear to carry around and more room in your bag.
> It removes glares and reflections when shooting through windows and holds any size circular filter, allowing you to use your largest filters with your smallest lenses.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## cayenne (Sep 16, 2020)

Hmm.
Interesting. I rarely if ever use a lens hood, as that they just take up so much room when trying to pack a bag tight with equipment already.

However, I hear a lot of people out there use lens hoods a LOT as a protective device for their lenses, and well, this rubber one just wouldn't do that.

I missed the early birds, but this thing is only $30 for 1 or $50 for 2 of them.....might be worth a try.

The part about it acing as a sort of "universal" filter holder might prove interesting....hmm.

Thoughts?

cayenne


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 16, 2020)

Ok, please, could we get this straight? Is it KURVD or KUVRD?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 16, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, please, could we get this straight? Is it KURVD or KUVRD?



Covered


----------



## kten (Sep 17, 2020)

Don't know where the worlds first comes from I've seen these around over the years although never owned one. I seem to recall one of the pro's I follow the personal work of (forget who, possibly mcnally) saying years ago he liked using one because universal, didn't take up much room in kit bag and not prone to breaking like hard lenshoods. Call me cynical but half the stuff I see on kickstarter I feel already existed and the campaigns are basically just group buys with a huge markup for folks who didn't want to do research/hunting around and rather just throw money at it. Although there is a place for that, my issue is more I see a lot of crowd funding campaigns made out it is an idea of the project team that needs backing to make it reality when in fact they already often are albeit lesser known things.


----------



## dominic_siu (Sep 17, 2020)

This kind of hood already made by Chinese company long long time ago and not very useful especially lens protection


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 17, 2020)

OK so people saying this exists - link us to one. I'd like to see/compare. 

For those saying it doesn't protect - isn't the primary function of a lens hood to block unwanted light reflections? I would think a purely protective hood would already be generic, even from lens manufacturers.


----------



## marathonman (Sep 17, 2020)

I'll probably get one, just to see if it truly does allow you to shoot through windows etc without reflections. 
Plus, if you are like me and want to travel as light as possible, then this seems to be a good option. I rarely take the lens hood when I travel by plane somewhere, so I might just with something like this.
Plus the idea of using it to protect your camera as you change a lens, or put it down, is neat too. 

Plus I'm sure you can use it to protect your hand from your overheating R5 so it has that going for it too..... I guess once it emerges from the EOSHD fridge it might be RIGID though ;-) (You are welcome)


----------



## dominic_siu (Sep 17, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> *OK so people saying this exists - link us to one. I'd like to see/compare.
> 
> For those saying it doesn't protect - isn't the primary function of a lens hood to block unwanted light reflections? I would think a purely protective hood would already be generic, even from lens manufacturers. *



See below link from Taobao:
4.0fu致内容$hKxHc4n3JUG$打開τa0寳或掂击炼接 https://m.tb.cn/h.VyiEA91?sm=4abab3 至浏.览览.器【金属环软橡胶三用软胶伸缩遮光罩49/52/55/58/62/67/72/77/MM】


----------



## CvH (Sep 17, 2020)

marathonman said:


> I'll probably get one, just to see if it truly does allow you to shoot through windows etc without reflections.
> Plus, if you are like me and want to travel as light as possible, then this seems to be a good option. I rarely take the lens hood when I travel by plane somewhere, so I might just with something like this.
> Plus the idea of using it to protect your camera as you change a lens, or put it down, is neat too.



I have one of this for blocking reflections when shoot through windows https://www.aliexpress.com/snapshot...rderId=8012351208758626&productId=33031511319


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 17, 2020)

My take, this is just BS. Manufacturers make lens hoods in distinct pattern for each lens for a reason. This IMO in some cases will not prevent flares and in other cases will vignette. It make work for a few tele lenses. Obviously this is purely my guess and my opinion.


----------



## SHAMwow (Sep 17, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> My take, this is just BS. Manufacturers make lens hoods in distinct pattern for each lens for a reason. This IMO in some cases will not prevent flares and in other cases will vignette. It make work for a few tele lenses. Obviously this is purely my guess and my opinion.



Agreed. I love how one feature is it won't be seen in corners or cause vignetting, but the ones tailor made for each lens will. Or completely ignoring the protective benefits of a rigid hood. And they just don't look aesthetically pleasing at all for me personally. I only see this for someone how normally doesn't use a hood...but then wouldn't they just keep not using a hood?


----------



## degos (Sep 17, 2020)

Be sure to order the correct version of two sizes of this "universal" hood or it mightn't fit... #unintendedirony



https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/030/336/513/fe6c4f536d3e0b91f2c9b8d039e98527_original.png



Fits any lens except those it doesn't fit. Universal!


----------



## zim (Sep 17, 2020)

Was there not another thread that discussed this....
RF Lenses with control ring 
'The only lens hood you'll ever need' universal, that will be why they have two versions


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 17, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> My take, this is just BS. Manufacturers make lens hoods in distinct pattern for each lens for a reason. This IMO in some cases will not prevent flares and in other cases will vignette. It make work for a few tele lenses. Obviously this is purely my guess and my opinion.


Wide angle lenses are generally the issue. I haven't seen a hood for a 16-35 type of zoom lens that does anything useful and they are generally a pointless piece of plastic. I love the reverse zoom feature of the ef 24-70mm f2.8 L (mkI). The barrel extended at the wide 24mm end and was compact at the long 70mm end. It meant that canon could design a large hood that fixed to the body and not the front element so that worked effectively across it's massive zoom range. It was a marvellous design that really worked very well. It also meant that the lens / image actually magnified as your focussing got closer to MFD than loosing magnification. It was a pretty special lens once understood. It's a pity Canon ditched this idea for the mkII. 
I agree that this product is a sales / marketing gimmic and another photo gizmo that looks useful until about 5 mins of using it on a shoot. 
I think the "removes glare" should read "can reduce glare". I also don't understand the blanket statement of "can use any sized CPL"...that's a very broad statement. I've had a Sigma 105mm CPL, a 150mm CPL from wunapanna but currently use both 82mm, 77mm and 72mm CPLs depending whihc lens I'm using. I'd rather have a dedicated CPL for each lens...just in case i break or drop one...I'm then not stuffed for the day.


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 17, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> See below link from Taobao:
> 4.0fu致内容$hKxHc4n3JUG$打開τa0寳或掂击炼接 https://m.tb.cn/h.VyiEA91?sm=4abab3 至浏.览览.器【金属环软橡胶三用软胶伸缩遮光罩49/52/55/58/62/67/72/77/MM】



You missed the point......
This link you have to buy one hood for each size.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 17, 2020)

SHAMwow said:


> Agreed. I love how one feature is it won't be seen in corners or cause vignetting, but the ones tailor made for each lens will. Or completely ignoring the protective benefits of a rigid hood. And they just don't look aesthetically pleasing at all for me personally. I only see this for someone how normally doesn't use a hood...but then wouldn't they just keep not using a hood?



I fall into the latter group....in my office I have piles of the solid hoods.
I just never use them, they take up too much room when packing gear that I could use better for things I directly need to shoot images (digital and film).

I especially think of this when I'm shooting concert festivals (hope we get back to having those)....but I have to carry one bag all day with all bodies and lenses I need for the day. No room for lens hoods.

So, I might actually use these.

My lens protection is "me"....paying attention to where my camera and lenses are hanging....so, far, so good.

As far the vignetting ,etc....I don't think they made the claim that these rubber ones would not and the custom ones would....I didn't see that anywhere....I just saw that with the rubber ones, you could pop them in/out so that it would not be seen by the lens it was on.

I might use a hood if it collapsed fully and didn't take up much room in my bag...and that I could use one to fit on any given lens I had that day....

I might get 1-2 of them...only like $50/2 so, it isn't like its breaking the bank....I have bar tabs MUCH higher than that on any given night...hahaha.

Anyway, interesting conversation.

*How many here actually regularly USE their lens hoods?*

I honestly can't ever think of a time I have used one.

cayenne


----------



## mpeeps (Sep 17, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Wide angle lenses are generally the issue. I haven't seen a hood for a 16-35 type of zoom lens that does anything useful and they are generally a pointless piece of plastic. I love the reverse zoom feature of the ef 24-70mm f2.8 L (mkI). The barrel extended at the wide 24mm end and was compact at the long 70mm end. It meant that canon could design a large hood that fixed to the body and not the front element so that worked effectively across it's massive zoom range. It was a marvellous design that really worked very well. It also meant that the lens / image actually magnified as your focussing got closer to MFD than loosing magnification. It was a pretty special lens once understood. It's a pity Canon ditched this idea for the mkII.
> I agree that this product is a sales / marketing gimmic and another photo gizmo that looks useful until about 5 mins of using it on a shoot.
> I think the "removes glare" should read "can reduce glare". I also don't understand the blanket statement of "can use any sized CPL"...that's a very broad statement. I've had a Sigma 105mm CPL, a 150mm CPL from wunapanna but currently use both 82mm, 77mm and 72mm CPLs depending whihc lens I'm using. I'd rather have a dedicated CPL for each lens...just in case i break or drop one...I'm then not stuffed for the day.


Not only all of that, I just screw on hoods backwards like they are designed when I want to put my lenses in bag or storage.


----------



## slclick (Sep 17, 2020)

I use my hoods on all glass except macro work, then I make sure I have protection for the front element in other ways. I am a firm believer that mitigating flare comes from distinct shapes designed for a particular lens. Then there is the issue of drops where a rigid hood will offer more protection. All in all, I just don't see this being a good way to spend my money, or for the sellers, it's very ho hum like their caps. Quite boring and hardly revolutionary.


----------



## digigal (Sep 17, 2020)

I guess I'm an outlier because I use a lens hood all the time. I don't have any kind of filter on the front end of my lenses so I count on the lens hood to protect the front of the lens from damage as well as doing its usual job of preventing glare, etc when photographing. I do wildlife/nature photography so am out in all kinds of terrain and weather and am pretty clumsy and with my lenses hanging off of me and banging around they need protection (if I had to dig my stuff out of a camera bag and put it together whatever I was going to photograph would be long gone, so most of my gear is out and ready--and abused ) When packing for a trip, if the hoods won't fit reversed on the lenses in the camera bag, I nest them together in my suitcase and stuff them with clothes--never travel without them.
Catherine


----------



## mpeeps (Sep 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> I use my hoods on all glass except macro work, then I make sure I have protection for the front element in other ways. I am a firm believer that mitigating flare comes from distinct shapes designed for a particular lens. Then there is the issue of drops where a rigid hood will offer more protection. All in all, I just don't see this being a good way to spend my money, or for the sellers, it's very ho hum like their caps. Quite boring and hardly revolutionary.


Reminds me of me when I purchased Gary Fong speedlight modifier.


----------



## mpeeps (Sep 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I fall into the latter group....in my office I have piles of the solid hoods.
> I just never use them, they take up too much room when packing gear that I could use better for things I directly need to shoot images (digital and film).
> 
> I especially think of this when I'm shooting concert festivals (hope we get back to having those)....but I have to carry one bag all day with all bodies and lenses I need for the day. No room for lens hoods.
> ...


I always use them except for macro. That said, I always use filters too, so I'm obviously well trained!


----------



## kten (Sep 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> My lens protection is "me"....paying attention to where my camera and lenses are hanging....so, far, so good.
> .........
> *How many here actually regularly USE their lens hoods?*
> 
> ...


I pretty much always use one, but I pretty much mostly use multiple lights. The point of a hood is not protection and never heard that before as presumed most folks knew the purpose but perhaps not as is specific to certain types of lighting. That [protection] may be a side benefit of some times in some very particular situations admittedly but not what they are designed for.

They are basically for flagging the lens to reduce likelyhood of flare (and related like loss of contrast) from stray light from hitting front at shallow angles and bouncing around in that front element group and causing issues. Pretty much never want loss of contrast and flare and very likely with a lot of lights that are coming at shallow angles from the side. Means I don't need to flag the camera at every position and eggcrate lights for camera instead of for light shaping reasons. Same in daylight outside ambient only circumstances where stray light can bounce off reflective surfaces, concrete and so on thus I always use a hood unless there is no risk of flare etc or the cons outweight benefit (shading in macro at closest focus.)


----------



## dwarven (Sep 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Hmm.
> Interesting. I rarely if ever use a lens hood, as that they just take up so much room when trying to pack a bag tight with equipment already.
> 
> However, I hear a lot of people out there use lens hoods a LOT as a protective device for their lenses, and well, this rubber one just wouldn't do that.
> ...



There seem to be two types of photographers. Those who use hoods and those who don't lol. I always have one on no matter what. It protects the front element from dust, water, and drops. Or flying balls if you shoot sports. I don't want to spend hundreds or thousands on a nice lens only to put a $10 UV filter on it. However, this thing just seems like one more piece of unnecessary gear to waste money on. I'll just continue using the hoods the lenses come with.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Sep 17, 2020)

Three things that look, at least, like weaknesses :
- in their advertising video, at several moments, we can see the light is passing thru the hood (which is not expected for a hood)
- we also can see the hood can twist easily quite a lot when you move your camera : won't it just cover a part of the image circle when shooting fast moving subjects, especially if the hood is expanded to its greatest shape on telephoto lenses (i.e. mostly when shooting sport, BIF...) ?
- overall, this thing looks too much flexible to be able to protect a lens efficiently (what a regular lens hood can do most of the time)
Whatever is pretended in their well produced video, it really looks like a subpar concept, sorry.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2020)

dwarven said:


> There seem to be two types of photographers. Those who use hoods and those who don't lol. I always have one on no matter what. It protects the front element from dust, water, and drops. Or flying balls if you shoot sports. I don't want to spend hundreds or thousands on a nice lens only to put a $10 UV filter on it. However, this thing just seems like one more piece of unnecessary gear to waste money on. I'll just continue using the hoods the lenses come with.


Unfortunately all too many Canon lenses don't come with hoods and the genuine ones are a ripoff. I bought the criminally priced EW-72 for my 35mm f2 IS and the just overpriced ES-71 II for my 50mm f1.4. I recently dropped my EF 15mm and bent the built in hood but got a new one off eBay for a few dollars, does anybody know what I need to dissolve the blobs of glue they use as thread lock?

Obviously I am firmly in the always hoods camp!


----------



## dwarven (Sep 17, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> *Unfortunately all too many Canon lenses don't come with hoods and the genuine ones are a ripoff.* I bought the criminally priced EW-72 for my 35mm f2 IS and the just overpriced ES-71 II for my 50mm f1.4. I recently dropped my EF 15mm and bent the built in hood but got a new one off eBay for a few dollars, does anybody know what I need to dissolve the blobs of glue they use as thread lock?
> 
> Obviously I am firmly in the always hoods camp!



That I did not know. I only have one L lens, which came with a hood. All my other lenses are from Sigma, which all came with hoods as well. As for the glue blobs, I have no idea, but that sounds a little sketchy lol!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2020)

dwarven said:


> That I did not know. I only have one L lens, which came with a hood. All my other lenses are from Sigma, which all came with hoods as well. As for the glue blobs, I have no idea, but that sounds a little sketchy lol!


Only L lenses come with hoods from Canon. I'm sure many people will point out exceptions though, my EF-M Macro came with a hood for example, as does the 400mm DO.

 No it's not sketchy, it is how they do it to prevent unscrewing over time. I've posted a new thread on the lenses forum and if anybody is interested I'll post some pictures.


----------



## lexptr (Sep 17, 2020)

On all lenses I usually use hood. Both for reducing possible glare and as a protection. Protection-wise it can help to some degree against bumps, touches, light rain or snow. Only with macro I usually remove hood, as it either gets too close to the subject or drops shadow. For storage I just reverse the hood. And no, I don't think this rubber "universal thing" can replace my hoods. Universal tools usually do many things but only few of them they do well or even nothing well at all. Last, but not the least - it's just too ugly


----------



## kten (Sep 17, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Unfortunately all too many Canon lenses don't come with hoods and the genuine ones are a ripoff. I bought the criminally priced EW-72 for my 35mm f2 IS and the just overpriced ES-71 II for my 50mm f1.4. I recently dropped my EF 15mm and bent the built in hood but got a new one off eBay for a few dollars, does anybody know what I need to dissolve the blobs of glue they use as thread lock?
> 
> Obviously I am firmly in the always hoods camp!


If it is actually threadlocker they are usually some kind of methacrylate, for that whole family of acrylates but mostly PMMA I use toluene or acetone on them usually. Couple of other things will work but you're less likely to have any knocking around thus wont go into them.

Caveat is they will melt some plastics such as ABS which cheapo mystery plastic things tend to be made of. I've dunked other plastics in them fine but they tend to be known stuff where I've know it is pbt or whatever which don't melt in solvent I chose. Other friends are heat which makes it plasticise and tacky or sometimes cold (for instance ECA superglue is acrylate that loses a lot of strength at lower temp and becomes brittle along with having poor torsional strength thus if is actually that kind of glue it'll twist off via chilling).

I have used things on stuff they are not "safe" with and had success but I'd mask off and apply it to localised area and with care. Test a small spot if I were you and apply locally to just that area and bluetack and tape around and dab until effective may ("may", not "definitely") work out. Obviously ymmv and be safe about it and practice common sense yadda yadda. Hate to have to add it but obviosuly don't do something you're not comfortable with or researched basic safety on. I generally hate having to put disclaimers on everything due to internet health and safety police, however get that people do some risky things unknowningly. Although in fairness I've seen people do things in labs who DO know better more out of convenience or blase attitude that'd turn your hair white, all the more worrying in that they are far too comfortable with stuff that'd make folks outside that circle nervous.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 18, 2020)

kten said:


> I pretty much always use one, but I pretty much mostly use multiple lights. The point of a hood is not protection and never heard that before as presumed most folks knew the purpose but perhaps not as is specific to certain types of lighting. That [protection] may be a side benefit of some times in some very particular situations admittedly but not what they are designed for.
> 
> They are basically for flagging the lens to reduce likelyhood of flare (and related like loss of contrast) from stray light from hitting front at shallow angles and bouncing around in that front element group and causing issues. Pretty much never want loss of contrast and flare and very likely with a lot of lights that are coming at shallow angles from the side. Means I don't need to flag the camera at every position and eggcrate lights for camera instead of for light shaping reasons. Same in daylight outside ambient only circumstances where stray light can bounce off reflective surfaces, concrete and so on thus I always use a hood unless there is no risk of flare etc or the cons outweight benefit (shading in macro at closest focus.)




hmm.
I don't know that I"ve ever had problems with all these light flares, etc.....at least, none that I've caught....since I never use a hood.

If you don't have a flare, are you saying that still using a hood improves contrast by just having it on the end of the lens?

C


----------



## kten (Sep 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> hmm.
> I don't know that I"ve ever had problems with all these light flares, etc.....at least, none that I've caught....since I never use a hood.
> 
> If you don't have a flare, are you saying that still using a hood improves contrast by just having it on the end of the lens?
> ...


It is one of those things like most things in photography that doesn't have a simple answer... it depends. Obviously there are a lot of factors and totally scene [light] dependent, lens matters also and to some degree viewer discernment and who the images are for or purpose of them. It depends on the light and where it is coming from and obviously no-one can answer that without knowing the scene and knowing a particular lens behaviour. Some are really prone to flare/veiling/contrast issues etc and it doesn't take much to cause noticeable problems in lot of lighting conditions, some lenses may be more forgiving and only cause issues in extremes. edit: you can look up types of flare for comparissons and also review tests on the models you use that check for that deliberately to see. Plus some may be there but not apparent such as large area but mild veiling not dramatically visible until the extreme zones, just caussing a general fog that can hide high frequency detail and some loss of contrast but not a problem most would notice and if you aren't shooting for editors or clients who'd object who cares.

Also the degree and qualities of it matter even when present thus again is not so simple as any = bad. Well controlled only detected when pixelpeeping means good enough and I'd class that in the same camp as absent of flares. More this second point is how sometimes it may even be favourable. More so with cine glass than stills orientated glass where they don't try and obliterate such things so much as make it look good and can be used for creative reasons. For instance if you have massive generalised veiling hazy blob wiping out contrast in a landscape shot with sun coming from camera front/side and horrid looking blob artifacts it will look nasty where having a really nice well done cinematic flare starbursts and veiling is less general blob and nice "godray" style shafts it can look much much nicer than no flare at all. Generally for photo glass though it is preferably avoided as often doesn't look so favourable as less effort is put into things like pleasing flare for stills (or makign parfocal and so on thus cine glass oft cost more even if for stills it is equivalent image quality otherwise re: sharpness and general rendering).

If you only shoot scenes with light behind you with nothing too reflective close by and have lenses that generally don't complain unless you push them to extremes such as shooting into the sun or point lightsource unintentionally (ie. almost never) and don't already own hoods I wouldn't sweat it. That isn't me but sounds like it could be fine for you so I wouldn't rush out and buy hoods. Plus even if you did notice problems you can fix it with hand/moving closer to something to flag that offending light path and so on in most situations. If you constantly find yourself in scenes with light(s) at potential problem positions to the camera in scenes where you want nothing but image light getting to the sensor it is obviously bigger deal chancing it happening or not and troubleshooting when it happens. Thus airing on side of caution using a hood to help prevent it saves time and messing by avoiding the problem rather than waiting for problem then rectifying.

There are generally no downsides if you own hoods though if you own the right hoods as they oft reverse mount to lens for storage, as for vignetting even wide angles that could be prone to vignetting tend to have petal hoods made to match the lens fov thus avoid it. Generally as again there can be rare instances and lighting conditions.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 18, 2020)

Lens hoods must Be sized for the FOV of the lens. This invites screw ups where the hood appears in the shot.


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

Cayenne,

Thanks for your response. There are a few reasons why photographers use lens hoods with one of the main ones being as a protective shield for the lens... You'd be surprised though at the overall toughness of our lens hoods. In fact, if you check out the Kickstarter Video and go to 2:57, you'll see our lens hood acting as a pretty tough barrier against the table we were slamming the lens into.

Regardless though, thanks for your comment and genuine concern points. It's photographers like you that make us love this community.

KUVRD



cayenne said:


> Hmm.
> Interesting. I rarely if ever use a lens hood, as that they just take up so much room when trying to pack a bag tight with equipment already.
> 
> However, I hear a lot of people out there use lens hoods a LOT as a protective device for their lenses, and well, this rubber one just wouldn't do that.
> ...


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, please, could we get this straight? Is it KURVD or KUVRD?


Haha... it's KUVRD, pronounced, "covered".


----------



## PRK (Sep 18, 2020)

Newer quality lenses doesn't suffer from that much flare, when indirect sunlight hits them. I usually use hoods to protect my lenses, as IMO, an UV filter (as a protection) is just one more (and much worse quality) glass element introduced. The collapsible design removes the protection factor at all, furthermore, a lot of the factory hoods can be reversed to make the lens more compact. Also, 40$ for a 3-5$ thing doesn't make it up for me.


----------



## PRK (Sep 18, 2020)

KUVRD said:


> Haha... it's KUVRD, pronounced, "covered".


My brain just read every letter instead of thinking about the 'covered' pronunciation, maybe you should rethink the branding bit


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

ScottyP said:


> Lens hoods must Be sized for the FOV of the lens. This invites screw ups where the hood appears in the shot.



Actually... it doesn't. Thanks to its specific fold points, you're able to collapse at multiple different grooves so that our hood retracts far enough to remove itself from the shot, eliminating both dark spots in the corners of the frame and also any vignetting.

Check out this gif here to better explain this;









No Vignetting.gif







drive.google.com





Hopefully that helps clarify things.

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

PRK said:


> Newer quality lenses doesn't suffer from that much flare, when indirect sunlight hits them. I usually use hoods to protect my lenses, as IMO, an UV filter (as a protection) is just one more (and much worse quality) glass element introduced. The collapsible design removes the protection factor at all, furthermore, a lot of the factory hoods can be reversed to make the lens more compact. Also, 40$ for a 3-5$ thing doesn't make it up for me.



Hey, great points! There are multiple reasons why a photographer would buy a lens hood and from your comment, it seems like our design wouldn't be best suited for you, your setup or workflow.

Also, due to the fact that we are almost three years running, we are pretty much 100% committed to KUVRD as a brand name... even though we know it's initially confusing to read/understand. haha

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

PRK said:


> My brain just read every letter instead of thinking about the 'covered' pronunciation, maybe you should rethink the branding bit


Hahah... kind of confusing at first.. but it grows on you.


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

kten said:


> It is one of those things like most things in photography that doesn't have a simple answer... it depends. Obviously there are a lot of factors and totally scene [light] dependent, lens matters also and to some degree viewer discernment and who the images are for or purpose of them. It depends on the light and where it is coming from and obviously no-one can answer that without knowing the scene and knowing a particular lens behaviour. Some are really prone to flare/veiling/contrast issues etc and it doesn't take much to cause noticeable problems in lot of lighting conditions, some lenses may be more forgiving and only cause issues in extremes. edit: you can look up types of flare for comparissons and also review tests on the models you use that check for that deliberately to see. Plus some may be there but not apparent such as large area but mild veiling not dramatically visible until the extreme zones, just caussing a general fog that can hide high frequency detail and some loss of contrast but not a problem most would notice and if you aren't shooting for editors or clients who'd object who cares.
> 
> Also the degree and qualities of it matter even when present thus again is not so simple as any = bad. Well controlled only detected when pixelpeeping means good enough and I'd class that in the same camp as absent of flares. More this second point is how sometimes it may even be favourable. More so with cine glass than stills orientated glass where they don't try and obliterate such things so much as make it look good and can be used for creative reasons. For instance if you have massive generalised veiling hazy blob wiping out contrast in a landscape shot with sun coming from camera front/side and horrid looking blob artifacts it will look nasty where having a really nice well done cinematic flare starbursts and veiling is less general blob and nice "godray" style shafts it can look much much nicer than no flare at all. Generally for photo glass though it is preferably avoided as often doesn't look so favourable as less effort is put into things like pleasing flare for stills (or makign parfocal and so on thus cine glass oft cost more even if for stills it is equivalent image quality otherwise re: sharpness and general rendering).
> 
> ...



BRAVO!! We rate your comment a 12 out of 10... Seriously, fantastic comment. Nothing more to say.


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

digigal said:


> I guess I'm an outlier because I use a lens hood all the time. I don't have any kind of filter on the front end of my lenses so I count on the lens hood to protect the front of the lens from damage as well as doing its usual job of preventing glare, etc when photographing. I do wildlife/nature photography so am out in all kinds of terrain and weather and am pretty clumsy and with my lenses hanging off of me and banging around they need protection (if I had to dig my stuff out of a camera bag and put it together whatever I was going to photograph would be long gone, so most of my gear is out and ready--and abused ) When packing for a trip, if the hoods won't fit reversed on the lenses in the camera bag, I nest them together in my suitcase and stuff them with clothes--never travel without them.
> Catherine



Well then... from the sound of your comment, I think our Universal Lens Hood would be absolutely perfect for you  

Just saying... ha.

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> I use my hoods on all glass except macro work, then I make sure I have protection for the front element in other ways. I am a firm believer that mitigating flare comes from distinct shapes designed for a particular lens. Then there is the issue of drops where a rigid hood will offer more protection. All in all, I just don't see this being a good way to spend my money, or for the sellers, it's very ho hum like their caps. Quite boring and hardly revolutionary.



Slclick,

Well, agree to disagree, right? In the end, we're out here trying to create, design and innovate conventional camera accessories and do so by prioritizing the main pain points and challenges the majority of photographers face with that traditional product as the focus for what features and solutions our products will have.

And so, if your opinion is that are products are ho hum, boring and hardly revolutionary, we're the first to say that for the most part, you're right. Our goal in designing our products has never been to WOW the crowd, captivate audiences and disrupt the camera industry with ground breaking new stuff.. it's been to find out common pain points photographers deal with when using certain camera accessories and design something that addresses those pain points... We're not re-inventing the wheel, we're attempting to create a better mouse trap... and for some photo/videographers, they'll connect with our products and find them useful... and others won't.

And for the reasons you like and use lens hoods, it sounds like our lens hood wouldn't serve you or enhance your workflow anymore than what conventional lens hoods already do for you.

Luckily you didn't have to spend money on our product to find that out and we didn't have to refund you for expecting something of our product that, from your perspective, it doesn't provide. Looks like we all win. 

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

kten said:


> Don't know where the worlds first comes from I've seen these around over the years although never owned one. I seem to recall one of the pro's I follow the personal work of (forget who, possibly mcnally) saying years ago he liked using one because universal, didn't take up much room in kit bag and not prone to breaking like hard lenshoods. Call me cynical but half the stuff I see on kickstarter I feel already existed and the campaigns are basically just group buys with a huge markup for folks who didn't want to do research/hunting around and rather just throw money at it. Although there is a place for that, my issue is more I see a lot of crowd funding campaigns made out it is an idea of the project team that needs backing to make it reality when in fact they already often are albeit lesser known things.



Yeah, you might be right. Luckily, ours isn't one of those. Our lens hoods was designed after seeking out any and all alternatives and seeing that none of them lived up to the standard we were wanting, nor did they solve all the common pain points photographers had brought up when discussing the challenges they have when using lens hoods.

We'd LOVE to know this photographer friend of yours and know more about this universal lens hood you mentioned. Sounds really interesting and will genuinely come as a shock to us for not having spotted it over the hundreds of hours of research we've done thus far with our product.

Look forward to hearing form you!

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> This kind of hood already made by Chinese company long long time ago and not very useful especially lens protection



You're totally right! It sucked back then and it still sucks now... which is why we ameliorated on it, made it actually useful and quite protective for the lens.

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> OK so people saying this exists - link us to one. I'd like to see/compare.
> 
> For those saying it doesn't protect - isn't the primary function of a lens hood to block unwanted light reflections? I would think a purely protective hood would already be generic, even from lens manufacturers.



THANK YOU. No more needed to be said. We appreciate your comment. It's always nice hearing it from someone else.

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

marathonman said:


> I'll probably get one, just to see if it truly does allow you to shoot through windows etc without reflections.
> Plus, if you are like me and want to travel as light as possible, then this seems to be a good option. I rarely take the lens hood when I travel by plane somewhere, so I might just with something like this.
> Plus the idea of using it to protect your camera as you change a lens, or put it down, is neat too.
> 
> Plus I'm sure you can use it to protect your hand from your overheating R5 so it has that going for it too..... I guess once it emerges from the EOSHD fridge it might be RIGID though ;-) (You are welcome)



Hahaha! Great comment. We think that it's a great addition to any minimalist travel seeking to do EXACTLY what you just said... enhance workflow in ways that currently normal lens hoods cannot... i.e. remove reflection/glare when shooting through windows, acting as a placement when switching out camera gear, etc.

AND! If you support us, we'd LOVE to get your feedback after you've tested it out yourself.

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

SHAMwow said:


> Agreed. I love how one feature is it won't be seen in corners or cause vignetting, but the ones tailor made for each lens will. Or completely ignoring the protective benefits of a rigid hood. And they just don't look aesthetically pleasing at all for me personally. I only see this for someone how normally doesn't use a hood...but then wouldn't they just keep not using a hood?


Hey pal, 

Check out our main kickstarter video at 2:53 and let us know if it's as protective as a normal lens hood... also, click on the link below and let us know if you see any vignetting in the corners of the frame;









No Vignetting.gif







drive.google.com





I'm dying to hear your thoughts.

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> My take, this is just BS. Manufacturers make lens hoods in distinct pattern for each lens for a reason. This IMO in some cases will not prevent flares and in other cases will vignette. It make work for a few tele lenses. Obviously this is purely my guess and my opinion.



Hey, let me know if you see vignetting in the gif below;









No Vignetting.gif







drive.google.com


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

degos said:


> Be sure to order the correct version of two sizes of this "universal" hood or it mightn't fit... #unintendedirony
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Degos,

We have two sizes out of consideration and convenience for the user, not because we're morons ignorantly stating one thing while contradicting ourselves in the same breath.

Both sizes have an elasticity range that will stretch and fit over ALL lenses... The question changes from whether or not they're universal to "How much time are you willing spend struggling and really working to get it over certain lenses?"

Just like our lens caps, they’re 'universal' but we have multiple sizes due to the fact that photographers want efficiency and convenience in using them just as much as they do universality and versatility in the product.

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

zim said:


> Was there not another thread that discussed this....
> RF Lenses with control ring
> 'The only lens hood you'll ever need' universal, that will be why they have two versions



Zim,

If so, no need to go and find it. We'll address both points here;

First, we have two sizes out of consideration and convenience for the user, not because we're morons ignorantly stating one thing while contradicting ourselves in the same breath.

Both sizes have an elasticity range that will stretch and fit over ALL lenses... The question changes from whether or not they're universal to "How much time are you willing spend struggling and really working to get it over certain lenses?"

Just like our lens caps, they’re 'universal' but we have multiple sizes due to the fact that photographers want efficiency and convenience in using them just as much as they do universality and versatility in the product.

Second, we designed both sizes of our lens hoods so that the smallest side walls that wrap around and hug the lens barrel work perfectly to stretch DIRECTLY ONTO the top of the adjustments rings of lenses... be it the zoom ring or the focus ring.... without creating friction or drag when adjusting or turning the ring.

They have also been designed to stretch over and onto the stationary parts of lenses as well… so you can stretch and fit our lens hood onto the front lip of lenses, on the control rings of the RF lenses you mentioned, for some zoom lenses you can stretch and fit our lens hood onto the front lip and internal barrel that protrudes outward when having to zoom in and out, you can stretch it directly over and on top of the adjustments rings, onto the stagnant and ‘no-moving parts’ areas of the lens or to the very back of the lens where the male and female mounts connect… 

We designed this thing so that with WHATEVER lens you have, there is a way to stretch our hood over your lens’ barrel, have it hug any section of the lens and do so while STILL providing you -the user- the access, protection and total usage of the lens and our hood at any given moment. 

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Sep 18, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Wide angle lenses are generally the issue. I haven't seen a hood for a 16-35 type of zoom lens that does anything useful and they are generally a pointless piece of plastic. I love the reverse zoom feature of the ef 24-70mm f2.8 L (mkI). The barrel extended at the wide 24mm end and was compact at the long 70mm end. It meant that canon could design a large hood that fixed to the body and not the front element so that worked effectively across it's massive zoom range. It was a marvellous design that really worked very well. It also meant that the lens / image actually magnified as your focussing got closer to MFD than loosing magnification. It was a pretty special lens once understood. It's a pity Canon ditched this idea for the mkII.
> I agree that this product is a sales / marketing gimmic and another photo gizmo that looks useful until about 5 mins of using it on a shoot.
> I think the "removes glare" should read "can reduce glare". I also don't understand the blanket statement of "can use any sized CPL"...that's a very broad statement. I've had a Sigma 105mm CPL, a 150mm CPL from wunapanna but currently use both 82mm, 77mm and 72mm CPLs depending whihc lens I'm using. I'd rather have a dedicated CPL for each lens...just in case i break or drop one...I'm then not stuffed for the day.



Hey,

Check out these two links below. One is showing how you can fit any sized circular filter into the hood and use it for different sized lenses... also, if you watch our main kickstarter video, you'll see it demonstrated at 2:08...









Holds Any Filter..gif







drive.google.com





Lastly, our lens hood doesn't reduce glare, it ACTUALLY REMOVES it... that's what the second link shows...









Anti-Reflection.gif







drive.google.com





Let us know if you still think it's a marketing gimmick.

KUVRD


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 18, 2020)

KUVRD said:


> Hahah... kind of confusing at first.. but it grows on you.


Not sure if you’ve taken professional advice on the marketing, but I agree it’s a bad name for the product, and marketing will be critical to the product’s success.


----------



## zim (Sep 18, 2020)

KUVRD said:


> Zim,
> 
> If so, no need to go and find it. We'll address both points here;
> 
> ...


Hey kuvrd i have no horse in this race i was just saying to the fellow inmates that there was already a thread on this giving a couple of example reactions.
Personally i always use the lens hood for that lens and i don't find them an inconvenience. Where I'm really dumb (money) and a bit ocd i think is always want to have oem.

Anyway good luck to you


----------



## cayenne (Sep 18, 2020)

kten said:


> It is one of those things like most things in photography that doesn't have a simple answer... it depends. Obviously there are a lot of factors and totally scene [light] dependent, lens matters also and to some degree viewer discernment and who the images are for or purpose of them. It depends on the light and where it is coming from and obviously no-one can answer that without knowing the scene and knowing a particular lens behaviour. Some are really prone to flare/veiling/contrast issues etc and it doesn't take much to cause noticeable problems in lot of lighting conditions, some lenses may be more forgiving and only cause issues in extremes. edit: you can look up types of flare for comparissons and also review tests on the models you use that check for that deliberately to see. Plus some may be there but not apparent such as large area but mild veiling not dramatically visible until the extreme zones, just caussing a general fog that can hide high frequency detail and some loss of contrast but not a problem most would notice and if you aren't shooting for editors or clients who'd object who cares.
> 
> Also the degree and qualities of it matter even when present thus again is not so simple as any = bad. Well controlled only detected when pixelpeeping means good enough and I'd class that in the same camp as absent of flares. More this second point is how sometimes it may even be favourable. More so with cine glass than stills orientated glass where they don't try and obliterate such things so much as make it look good and can be used for creative reasons. For instance if you have massive generalised veiling hazy blob wiping out contrast in a landscape shot with sun coming from camera front/side and horrid looking blob artifacts it will look nasty where having a really nice well done cinematic flare starbursts and veiling is less general blob and nice "godray" style shafts it can look much much nicer than no flare at all. Generally for photo glass though it is preferably avoided as often doesn't look so favourable as less effort is put into things like pleasing flare for stills (or makign parfocal and so on thus cine glass oft cost more even if for stills it is equivalent image quality otherwise re: sharpness and general rendering).
> 
> ...



Thank you for the excellent, and well reasoned reply!!

You've given me a bit to chew on here and ponder.

LOL...I may actually start experiment WITH lens hoods at some point here.


Thanks!!

C


----------



## cayenne (Sep 18, 2020)

KUVRD said:


> Hahaha! Great comment. We think that it's a great addition to any minimalist travel seeking to do EXACTLY what you just said... enhance workflow in ways that currently normal lens hoods cannot... i.e. remove reflection/glare when shooting through windows, acting as a placement when switching out camera gear, etc.
> 
> AND! If you support us, we'd LOVE to get your feedback after you've tested it out yourself.
> 
> KUVRD



I"m thinking if nothing else, the shooting through glass benefits might be enough to make me want to try 1-2 of them...

How much longer is the KS campaign going before closing?

Thanks!

Cayenne


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 18, 2020)

Does it rotate on the RF lens control ring it slips over?


----------



## slclick (Sep 22, 2020)

Although I can see people thinking the exact opposite of me, I just get rubbed the wrong way with Mfg.'s chiming in here. I've got nothing to base it upon except loathing companies scrambling to deflect common sense, distaste for today's marketing bs and the myriad experience we collectively have which can be a detriment to products some here deem suspect.


----------



## becceric (Sep 23, 2020)

slclick said:


> Although I can see people thinking the exact opposite of me, I just get rubbed the wrong way with Mfg.'s chiming in here. I've got nothing to base it upon except loathing companies scrambling to deflect common sense, distaste for today's marketing bs and the myriad experience we collectively have which can be a detriment to products some here deem suspect.


I’m in your camp.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 23, 2020)

KUVRD said:


> Actually... it doesn't. Thanks to its specific fold points, you're able to collapse at multiple different grooves so that our hood retracts far enough to remove itself from the shot, eliminating both dark spots in the corners of the frame and also any vignetting.
> 
> Check out this gif here to better explain this;
> 
> ...


Sure, but if(when) I fail to collapse it enough, I have lens hood in the shot.


----------



## JPAZ (Oct 1, 2020)

FWIW, got 2 of them way back in a KS campaign (maybe 2 years ago?). They are unused as of yet.

I fall into the "almost always have a hood on" camp, if only for added protection of the lens. And, I usually have the OEM hood in place. Guess I'll need to try these one of these days.


----------

