Poll on lens hoods

[Don Hoey]

Super blue skies day so we headed for Wells-Next-The Sea, and saw these guys making what appeared to be a ' How to take Tides Out - Boat photographs '. They were there for over the 3 hours we were there, so were quite serious about the video.

Given that it was a really bright sun, the thing that struck me was that on neither of the lenses being used, did the photographer use a lens hood. Lenses w/a zoom and the lens in the pic that I do not recognise.

So I thought I would set up a fun poll on the subject of lens hood use.

Do you use a lens hood :

1) Never
2) Occasionally
3) Always

Don

[yelvertoft]

The sun looks quite high in the sky here Don, that together with the relatively long lenses they appear to be using would suggest there's not much likelihood of flare.

Bet in 3 months time there's a "how to" video of this in Digital Photo magazine, they seem keen on instructional videos.

D.

[gordon g]

I only dont use a lens hood when I have Lee filters on (and if I had a Lee hood, I would use that then!), or indoors using on-camera flash (which is almost never). Not only does it shade the lens and reduce flare, it also provides some physical protection for the front element and filter threads.

[Adey Baker]

I've managed to lose the hood for my Sigma 50mm macro. It's usually OK but I do get flare with it from certain angles. My old Olympus 50mm macro doesn't have a hood but it has a deeply recessed front element. Otherwise I almost always use a hood.

As well as the flare issue, it's also an added bit of protection against damage

[walwyn]

A lens hood is too bulky to carry about for the odd time that it would be useful. If it can't fit into the holster bag along with the camera, then it doesn't get taken. I sometimes make allowances for the TCON17, as that can fit in a jacket pocket, but so far I'm resisting go out with a bag of gear.

[gordon g]

Originally Posted by walwyn

A lens hood is too bulky to carry about for the odd time that it would be useful. If it can't fit into the holster bag along with the camera, then it doesn't get taken. I sometimes make allowances for the TCON17, as that can fit in a jacket pocket, but so far I'm resisting go out with a bag of gear.

That's the nice thing about sigma lenses - they come with a petal-type hood that reverses over the lens barrel, so it doesnt add greatly to the bulk of lens and camera

[yelvertoft]

I used to be of the same opinion as walwyn, until I realised that the vast majority of hoods can be stored "reversed" on the lens. I now keep all my hoods (except Sigma 105) stowed this way, and fit/use them on the lens as needed.

[jamieZ740]

depends on the lens! if i came with one then yeah!

[Don Hoey]

My lenses either have a fixed sliding hood or I bought cheap Hoya rubber jobs so I never really thought about it or what other folk did. Spend the money on the lens then I want the absolute best I can get from it. Showing the age of some of my kit there as hoods were always a seperate item in the old days.

Last year however Ros, new into photography, bought a Sigma 70-300 zoom to complement her kit lens. She was really quite dissapointed with the pics from that lens, and thought she had been sold a pup. A quick look at the pics established that flare was a problem. The lens hood was dug out and as if by magic image quality dramatically improved, and what was considered a duff lens was now a good one.

Just proves some lenses are more prone to flare than others, especially in this age of zooms with complex optical designs.

Don

[Rudra Sen]

I always use hoods for all my lenses. It's more of a discipline for me.