Do you always shoot with the lens hood?

Qarik

I see the value in shooting with a hood in bright sunlight where flare might be an issue but what about in the studio or indoors? I typpically shoot with out one and was wondering what others do.

kdog

Qarik wrote:

I see the value in shooting with a hood in bright sunlight where flare might be an issue but what about in the studio or indoors? I typpically shoot with out one and was wondering what others do.

I almost always use them indoors or out. Aside from blocking extraneous light sources, the hood also protects the lens. There's really little reason not to use them, unless you're concerned about the increased conspicuity for street shooting.

ziggy53

I almost always use both a protective filter and a lens hood during sessions. It's surprising how "any" stray light can cause a decrease in contrast. A lens hood should really be considered part of the optical system of the lens.

In strong backlight I will sometimes take off the filter, depending on the particular lens and how it tests in that situation and the purpose of the photograph.

Arvan

I allways use hood..Exept when you are looking for them supernice starflares in direct sunlight

Cygnus Studios

ziggy53 wrote:

I almost always use both a protective filter and a lens hood during sessions.

It is certainly cheaper to replace either of these than the lens.

Nikolai

+1 on Kdog and Ziggy
The hood interferes with nothing, usually helps and in case of of a stupid accident can save you a grand or two (or at least a few Benjamins in case of repairs)

Robinivich

I'll second everything here. The only exception is that with my ultrawide (10-22mm canon) the hood is giant and fairly ineffective, making it more trouble to bring than it's worth (my hand held over the camera does a better job) and I only bring it when I've got lots of space.

With that exception I'm all hood, all the time.

ziggy53

I did forget the one time I usually don't use a hood; macro and extremely close-focus is often difficult with the lens hood attached. The hood can complicate lighting the subject as well as maneuvering in tight places.

As luck would have it I just today got a used Tamron 90mm, f2.8 SP Macro and was testing it, which reminded me.

Mr. 2H2O

Like Ziggy, always a hood except for macro. Indoors I often shoot with flash both on and off camera so its a must.

- Mike

Nikolai

ziggy53 wrote:

I did forget the one time I usually don't use a hood; macro and extremely close-focus is often difficult with the lens hood attached. The hood can complicate lighting the subject as well as maneuvering in tight places.

Good point!
Hmm, idée de nouveau: macro and extreme close-up model shoot... (don't I have a one-track brain? :-)

sherijohnson

I was just wondering this myself, so thanks for asking and thank you everyone for answering.

NeilL

why, of course! I'm a good boy! :ivar ..and I don't do macro (yet!).

k2c1959

kdog wrote:

I almost always use them indoors or out. Aside from blocking extraneous light sources, the hood also protects the lens. There's really little reason not to use them, unless you're concerned about the increased conspicuity for street shooting.

i agree, plus i like the hoods on my big guns such as 100-400L i love the look on people faces when they see the added 5 inches of hood and how giant that monster is when extended to 400mm..lol..:D

kdog

k2c1959 wrote:

i agree, plus i like the hoods on my big guns such as 100-400L i love the look on people faces when they see the added 5 inches of hood and how giant that monster is when extended to 400mm..lol..:D

We talking lens-hood, or man-hood?

Nikolai

kdog wrote:

We talking lens-hood, or man-hood?

You can never have too much of either..;-)

k2c1959

kdog wrote:

We talking lens-hood, or man-hood? [/quote

:stud :lol4 ]

speric

ziggy53 wrote:

I did forget the one time I usually don't use a hood; macro and extremely close-focus is often difficult with the lens hood attached. The hood can complicate lighting the subject as well as maneuvering in tight places.

As luck would have it I just today got a used Tamron 90mm, f2.8 SP Macro and was testing it, which reminded me.

i was gonna say the same thing as for when I don't use a hood. I have this lens and the hood sticks out quite a bit, which makes it difficult to get "close" sometimes.

another reason why i always use a hood, is the one time i decided not to use it because I thought, I'm indoors, family event, blah-blah-blah, i took it off because i didn't want to carry it around and forgot it on the table at the reception place and lost it.:(:

NeilL

Nikolai wrote:

You can never have too much of either..;-)

....but it looks like it's gender specific!?!D

rpcrowe

Tamron 90mm SP Macro

ziggy53 wrote:

I did forget the one time I usually don't use a hood; macro and extremely close-focus is often difficult with the lens hood attached. The hood can complicate lighting the subject as well as maneuvering in tight places.

As luck would have it I just today got a used Tamron 90mm, f2.8 SP Macro and was testing it, which reminded me.

Congrats on your new macro lens. The 90mm f/2.8 Tamron SP Macro is a jewel. I have one and love it. The Di model is SUPPOSED to be optimized for digital but, my SP non-Di model provides IQ equal to my "L" lenses. IMO, a used Tammy like this can be the absolute best value on the used market.

However, this is the ONLY lens on which I don't use a hood either. The front element is recesed far enough into the barrel that the barrel acts like a hood.

ziggy53

rpcrowe wrote:

Congrats on your new macro lens. The 90mm f/2.8 Tamron SP Macro is a jewel. I have one and love it. The Di model is SUPPOSED to be optimized for digital but, my SP non-Di model provides IQ equal to my "L" lenses. IMO, a used Tammy like this can be the absolute best value on the used market.

However, this is the ONLY lens on which I don't use a hood either. The front element is recesed far enough into the barrel that the barrel acts like a hood.

Thanks. My early testing of the lens shows this to be a good copy.

I agree that the recessed front element provides some value as a hood and I believe that is by design, something Tamron deserves kudos for.

Travis

Only time without a hood is extreme wide angle where vignetteing will occur....

Manfr3d

The only time when I don't use hoods is for street photography, and only because the lens appears smaller that way. Otherwise the hood is always mounted as a protection from bumps and straylight.

NeilL

Travis wrote:

Only time without a hood is extreme wide angle where vignetteing will occur....

Point!

Blurmore

Yes...I always use a hood, and my hoods show this use, due to their use...my lenses show less use.

kdog

Blurmore wrote:

Yes...I always use a hood, and my hoods show this use, due to their use...my lenses show less use.

Indeed. I tripped and took a face-plant at Arches NP during the Dgrin shootout holding my 40D and 100-400mm on it. The lens hood got a nice scuff on it that otherwise would have been on the lens itself. Whew.

Awais Yaqub

Always
It looks great........

zoomer

Ok I will be the odd ball.
I never use them. They are a pain.
Several years and many THOUSANDS of pictures and have never damaged a lens that would have been saved by a lens hood and can count the number of images ruined by not using one on one hand.

kdog

zoomer wrote:

...
I never use them.
...
count the number of images ruined by not using one on one hand.

Ruined is an extreme case. How about simply degraded? Like Ziggy says:

ziggy53 wrote:

It's surprising how "any" stray light can cause a decrease in contrast. A lens hood should really be considered part of the optical system of the lens.

Can you honestly and unequivocally say that many of your images would not be improved by using a hood? Kinda hard to say since you never use them.

Cheers,
-joel