Poll: do you use lens hoods?

softtower · Oct 26, 2003

Probably all my lenses are very glare-resistant. I can't recall a shot which suffered from glare: I find it easier to pick a better shooting position than carry around those monsters.

Lenses I'm talking about are:

50mm
17-40mm
70-200mm

There is, of course, the "protection" aspect of the question. I find it much more convenient to use high quality UV-filters.

Hoods are just huge: I can't imagine carrying them around. For instance the hood for 17-40mm is just monstrous.

--
Eugueny

pso · Oct 27, 2003

Hi Jay!

Funny you should mention looks...I was taking a picture of my nephew with the petal hood mounted on the 28-135 IS...his dad says jokingly to me "what is that? A brain sucking device?"

It looks odd for people who are not used to SLR photography.
--
p.so

50/1.4 · Oct 27, 2003

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

--
'A Hard Day's Night' was the 3rd best 'Marx Brothers' movie ever made.

Nill Toulme · Oct 27, 2003

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=5610165

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

Stan Jirman said:
There it doesn't really do that much.

Stan

Photo Travelogues: http://www.phototrek.org/
Equipment list is in the profile.

Juli Valley · Oct 27, 2003

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

--
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=19579
Canon 1oD, Olympus C-3o4oZ.
Juli

jlongo · Oct 27, 2003

--
Growing older is mandatory; growing up is optional!
Joe

Ari Riutto · Oct 27, 2003

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

--

That's my 0,02 € -

Ari -

http://koti.phnet.fi/arriutto/images/ !0D-ja-Putket-LOGO.jpg
http://koti.phnet.fi/arriutto

Daniel Jackson · Oct 27, 2003

Wangler said:
Tuna Boy said:

So do you?

Click to expand...

For protection and better contrast. There is a magic hood called
ET-65 III. On 10D/D60/D30, it can used for 28/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8,
100/2, 135/2.8, 70-300/4.5-5.6.

--
Wangler
== I just sold the 17 - 40 f4, my last zoom, also my last 'L'.==

--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Cloud · Oct 27, 2003

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

--
Cloud
Gallery: http://fotopruvodce.cz/fotogalerie/autori.phtml?autor=Cloud
word 'starsi' on the bottom of the page means 'next page'

Mikhail Bogdanov · Oct 27, 2003

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

Peter Foiles · Oct 27, 2003

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

Dan · Oct 27, 2003

I'm in the extreme minority, but I just find them to be too large and cumbersome. I have a bag that fits my lenses nicely without any hoods, and it would have to be twice as big to fit the hoods, because of how wide they are.

For the last few weeks, I've been using primarily the 24-70 and 70-200IS, and both hoods are just monsters.

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

iMac therefore iAm · Oct 27, 2003

pso said:
the sigma ones are so nice and usually come with their lenses

Canon lenses come with hoods too...well, the "L" ones do anyway;-)
--
'Me fail English? That's unpossible!'

Stefan Schott · Oct 27, 2003

Tuna Boy said:
So do you?

pso · Oct 27, 2003

haha speaking of L ones...if it is a good Christmas, I may be getting the bargain L (70-200 f/4).

I hope the lens hood is built better than the one for my 28-135.

iMac therefore iAm said:
Canon lenses come with hoods too...well, the "L" ones do anyway;-)
--
'Me fail English? That's unpossible!'

--
p.so

iMac therefore iAm · Oct 27, 2003

Don't know about the 28-135, but I have the 70-200f4 and the hood is fine with me.

pso said:
haha speaking of L ones...if it is a good Christmas, I may be
getting the bargain L (70-200 f/4).

I hope the lens hood is built better than the one for my 28-135.

--
'Me fail English? That's unpossible!'

Gary Coombs · Oct 27, 2003

Dan said:
I'm in the extreme minority, but I just find them to be too large
and cumbersome. I have a bag that fits my lenses nicely without
any hoods, and it would have to be twice as big to fit the hoods,
because of how wide they are.

For the last few weeks, I've been using primarily the 24-70 and
70-200IS, and both hoods are just monsters.

Even in a bag as small as my LowePro Micro Trekker 200 the 24-70 2.8L and 20-200 2.8L IS lens hoods fit nicely when reversed on these lenses. And my Gitzo tripod fits nicely in the tripod loops at the bottom.

When I took a couple of years of photography courses a few years back, one of the instructors said that you can always tell an amateur landscape photographer from a pro. An amateur never carries a tripod or lens hoods and you can tell it from his photographs. I've never forgotten those words.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

Dan · Oct 27, 2003

Thanks for your advice.

I definitely am not a professional, and I never have claimed to be one. I rarely if ever go out for the purpose of taking photos. Rather, I document my life with photos, trying hard not to let my obsession interfere with my family's enjoyment of life.

If a hood is the equivalent of a tripod, I'll happily do without both.

Gary Coombs said:
Dan said:

I'm in the extreme minority, but I just find them to be too large
and cumbersome. I have a bag that fits my lenses nicely without
any hoods, and it would have to be twice as big to fit the hoods,
because of how wide they are.

For the last few weeks, I've been using primarily the 24-70 and
70-200IS, and both hoods are just monsters.

Click to expand...

Even in a bag as small as my LowePro Micro Trekker 200 the 24-70
2.8L and 20-200 2.8L IS lens hoods fit nicely when reversed on
these lenses. And my Gitzo tripod fits nicely in the tripod loops
at the bottom.

When I took a couple of years of photography courses a few years
back, one of the instructors said that you can always tell an
amateur landscape photographer from a pro. An amateur never
carries a tripod or lens hoods and you can tell it from his
photographs. I've never forgotten those words.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

Karl Gnter Wnsch · Oct 27, 2003

Dan said:
If a hood is the equivalent of a tripod, I'll happily do without both.

You can do without the tripod if you don't shoot under adverse conditions - conditions in which you most likely never feel the need for the hood. But did you never shadow the lens front element from side light by using your hand? That's when you need the hood desperately. I lost a good amount of good pictures because there was no hood to fit the 602Z adapter tube. Since then I paid more for lens hoods (stupid manufacturers leaving them as acessory) than for filters on my previous 2 cameras and I get the rewards by getting higher contrast and clearer pictures than without.

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

softtower · Oct 27, 2003

Gary Coombs said:
you can always tell an
amateur landscape photographer from a pro. An amateur never
carries a tripod or lens hoods and you can tell it from his
photographs. I've never forgotten those words.

Exactly. That is the main reason to carry a hood: to look like a pro. That's why some of us bought a dSLR in the first place, right? ;-)

To me, there is only ONE reason to use a hood: when you can't get a picture of desirable quality without it. Fortunately for me that never happens.

--
Eugueny

Poll: do you use lens hoods?

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Dan

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Dan

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts