Need for Lens Hoods

Zanotti

I am packing for a trip and would like to lighten /shrink the load.

I have the 3 hoods in the pack for each lens I am bringing. I have the Sigma 10-20, Canon 24-105f4L, and Canon 70-200f4L.

I dont really use the hoods that much, maybe on the longer lens, more for actual protection than shading from the sun. Do I really need these things?

They are a pain in the butt to carry, they wont reverse on the lens and still fit in my backpack, so I have to carry them separately.

I know I am kind of answering my own questions here, but do I really need them?

Do you use them?

Z

pathfinder

I do use them, myself, George. Even on the wider ones, where they offer the least advantage optically.

The first time I went through Antelope Canyon, one of the shooters in the group I was with, did not keep the hood on his 16-35 f2.8 L. As a result of not having a lens hood, he left the canyon with a nice big scratch on the front optical surface of said lens. I vowed then and there, never to make that mistake!! YMMV of course.


Most lens can be reversed on the lens, though you said yours cannot - that is usually my peferred method of storage.

Zanotti

Oh, they all can be reversed - its just that the current backpack I use doesnt lend itself to having them reversed on the lens while in storage.

I do carry them that way, but it is a royal pain in the neck.

As you indicate, I too use them as protection only, since I do not use any kind of polarizing or protecting filter on the lens. This trip I expect they will be in the pack, except while in use so I think leaving them behind might be ok.

It's not that they are heavy, its just bulk.

Z

Andy

Zanotti wrote:

Do I really need these things?

Yes.

Zanotti wrote:

Do you use them?

Yes.

Terrence

If the lens cap is off, my hood is on. No exceptions.

Art Scott

Zanotti wrote:

But do I really need them?

ABSOLUTELY

Zanotti wrote:

Do you use them? Z

ABSOLUTELY

What I don't use is my lens caps....I just keep cleaning cloths real handy for the dust.

gus

Yep...either the lens cap is on or the hood is on. I went arse over tit yesterday at an event on a hillside with my much loved 135 f2 prime on. The hood is all that saved it. A hood is maybe $50-$80 but my insurance excess is probably $300.

Pindy

I know what the OP is saying, though. I use a backpack as well and the 3 "lanes" that are there to lay the lenses in and divide using those velcro pads are rarely wide enough for the hoods to be attached, in either orientation. The only one I can successfully keep on at all times in the one for the 70-200 f/4. I have a small parcel of space in there (center, bottom) where I can stack 3 other hoods, in a really lamely-fitting Russian dolls arrangement, but it works.

claudermilk

As with Andy & Art the answers are Yes, absolutely and Yes, absolutely. If the lenses won't fit with the hood reversed, IMHO the pack is undersized. You could nest all the hoods together and reverse them over the lens with the smallest hood.

Rhuarc

Something that my work in your situation is rubber lens hoods. I have one 58mm, and one 52mm. They both attach via the filter threads, not the normal hood mount. The only pain about this is that you can't put on the lens cap while the hood is on. THe nice thing is the fold down to a very small size. My 58mm is perfect for my 70-300 when it is in it's largest size, and perfect for my 28-105 when it is in it's medium size. Then when I fold it completely down it is only about 1 inch thick. I can then nest the folded 52mm inside of it. I fit both filters into the outside (not top) pocket of my Slingshot 300.

Plus they are 1/3 the cost of the Canon hoods.

Just my 2 cents worth.

USAIR

Always use the hood to protect and for stray light

Fred

pathfinder

Rhuarc wrote:

Something that my work in your situation is rubber lens hoods. I have one 58mm, and one 52mm. They both attach via the filter threads, not the normal hood mount. The only pain about this is that you can't put on the lens cap while the hood is on. THe nice thing is the fold down to a very small size. My 58mm is perfect for my 70-300 when it is in it's largest size, and perfect for my 28-105 when it is in it's medium size. Then when I fold it completely down it is only about 1 inch thick. I can then nest the folded 52mm inside of it. I fit both filters into the outside (not top) pocket of my Slingshot 300.

Plus they are 1/3 the cost of the Canon hoods.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Rhuarc,

I actually carry a 58mm rubber lens hood as a hood for a 50mm f1.4 which is not shipped by Canon with a hard hood - though they offer one for sale..and I have since bought one.

The problem with rubber hoods as I see it is that 1) they are not scooped on the side for a zoom lens, nor are they wide enough for a short focal length, or narrow enough for a telephoto and 2) being rubber, and collapseable, they will not prevent the optic of a wide angle from banging on a cement wall like a hard lens hood will.

They are small, easy to pack, and cheap. That is why I carry one; even though it has its limitations.

I do not use it in an environment where I am concerned about damage to the lens optic. Wide angle lenses with their protruberant front optics are especially at risk for damage without a good lens hood. Just my 2 cents also

bavasshokie

I use mine to reduce lens flair from sunlight and protect.

Art Scott

pathfinder wrote:

Rhuarc,

I actually carry a 58mm rubber lens hood as a hood for a 50mm f1.4 which is not shipped by Canon with a hard hood - though they offer one for sale..and I have since bought one.

The problem with rubber hoods as I see it is that 1) they are not scooped on the side for a zoom lens, nor are they wide enough for a short focal length, or narrow enough for a telephoto and 2) being rubber, and collapseable, they will not prevent the optic of a wide angle from banging on a cement wall like a hard lens hood will.

They are small, easy to pack, and cheap. That is why I carry one; even though it has its limitations.

I do not use it in an environment where I am concerned about damage to the lens optic. Wide angle lenses with their protruberant front optics are especially at risk for damage without a good lens hood. Just my 2 cents also

Collapsable lens hood are ....... well....rubbish.....now I do prefer a rubber hood to the hard plastic and yes they are a tad harder to come up with..............unless you have a really good video store in your local......now the 2 I curently use are hard rubber in about an 80-85mm size glued to the mounting ring of a collapsable hood that I discarded.......the thread size of the ring is 77mm and fits my 70-210 perfectly....if camera and lens is dropped the hard rubber hood will not only break the fall, but also cushion the fall, whereas the hard plactic hood will hit ground and shatter.....I still see lots of broadcast video cams with large rubber hoods so I know they are still out there, and for those of you in NYC, B&H probably has some with their Pro Broadcast video gear.........

Rhuarc

Art Scott wrote:

Collapsable lens hood are ....... well....rubbish.....now I do prefer a rubber hood to the hard plastic and yes they are a tad harder to come up with..............unless you have a really good video store in your local......now the 2 I curently use are hard rubber in about an 80-85mm size glued to the mounting ring of a collapsable hood that I discarded.......the thread size of the ring is 77mm and fits my 70-210 perfectly....if camera and lens is dropped the hard rubber hood will not only break the fall, but also cushion the fall, whereas the hard plactic hood will hit ground and shatter.....I still see lots of broadcast video cams with large rubber hoods so I know they are still out there, and for those of you in NYC, B&H probably has some with their Pro Broadcast video gear.........

While I'm sure you are 100% correct from a professional point of view, for me the collapsible ones work wonderfully. I'm not hard on my gear, and I don't shoot all the time. I also just don't feel like spending the mad amounts for lens hoods that Canon asks! I'm sure if I was spending 1000 or more per lens then it wouldn't seem so bad, but I'm not quite in that demographic yet... Someday!

Art Scott

Mine are not camera brand as a matter of fact I have no Idea what brand they are.....I found them after a broadcast station had been out to the "U" for some taping of Marcel Marceau.....I waited a a couple of weeks to see if they would call to see if we had found any missing gear and then I called and referenced what they had taped, got the actual camera man and he said he did not notice them being gone....and bid me good use of them.....so they sat in my desk for about another year and then I put them to use as I just moived up from the KM A2 to the KM 7D's and had just brok the lens hood on my 70-210, not by dropping it but it hit a tree as I was stalking upon a small herd of deer......but I have always prefered the hard rubber lens hoods...again I am rather rough on my gear.....I do not abuse it per se, but I sure don't baby it either.....plus I never believed that a petal hood was a good as a solid round hood...........but it is a matter of personal preference to which hoods one uses or if one uses one at all......

Van Isle

Not to blow sunshine up Andy's butt, but he's a pretty serious photog...so if Andy says "yes" to a piece of gear that comes with basically every decent lens...in fact, could be said to be part OF the lens "elements", well, then...

As for bulk, just figure out a way to pack them better. Loop them with a cord and clip them to the outside of the pack. Use individual carabiners to clip them to the outside. Use velcro straps to hook 'em up to your belt.

When I have to switch quick from my 18-200 to anything smaller, I often don't bother putting the hood away with the lens (tight fit in the pouch), I just throw it on my wrist like a bracelet until there's a break in the action. I say you just have to ruin one great shot with funny lights bouncing around inside the lens elements to realize you should use the hood.

VI

Andy wrote:

Yes.
Yes.