Metal lens hood vs Collapsable Rubber?

[Philly Wood]

Hi,

What are the pros and cons of a metal lens hood as opposed to a collapsable hood?

Do you (errr would an amateur with a Sony 707) typically remove the hood when storing the camera to a bag or would one typically leave it on similar to a UV filter for lens protection?

TIA, photoave

 

[Barper]

Rubber all the way for me! The only reason for metal is to afford some protection to the lens if bumped, BUT that has two edges since metal would pass the shock to the lens, even if the lens itself was not hit. Plastic is more forgiving in this regard and is used for most "tulip" style hoods supplied with wide angles or wide-zooms.

There are options with rubber such as those that fold down to different lengths for zoom lenses. This is handy, as well, when putting into a bag. NO, I only remove any hood if using one of my SLR's built- in flashes and the hood would be in the way. Otherwise, they are on ALL the time.

All the best.

 

[Jim DeLuco]

Hi,
What are the pros and cons of a metal lens hood as opposed to a
collapsable hood?

Do you (errr would an amateur with a Sony 707) typically remove the
hood when storing the camera to a bag or would one typically leave
it on similar to a UV filter for lens protection?

TIA, photoave

Rubber is cheaper but not as protective...unless it's hard rubber. Metal (or hard plastic) is more durable and more expensive but will not fold back (unless you go with a real expensive telescoping one) flush against the lens.

If you have the room in the bag, I would leave the hood on and put the lens cover over the lens. Most shades will allow you to do this.
--Jim DeLucoDeLuco Photographywww.delucophoto.com

 

[Fred Stucker]

As you're probably already aware, lens hoods not only help prevent flare but also provide some protection from fingerprints. I think this would be even more useful on point and shoot cameras where the front lens element or filter is closer to your fingertips than with a SLR. I keep hoods on all my Nikon SLR lenses at all times (except for my 60mm Micro, which has deeply recessed elements).

Plastic bayonet mount hoods were nice when I frequently changed filters while shooting film, but I rarely use more than UV and polarizers since switching to digital. Aluminum screw-on hoods are less likely to come off in my bag.

Most lens-specific rubber hoods are made a little wider than rigid models to prevent vignetting if the rubber gets a little out of shape--so there's a slightly greater risk of flare using rubber. Of course it's nice to be able to collapse a rubber hood to save space. The only rubber hood I use is on an old manual-focus 50mm f1.2.

If you use only digital SLRs it might be wise to use hoods designed for longer focal lengths, because of the smaller angle of view with digital.

Fred

Hi,
What are the pros and cons of a metal lens hood as opposed to a
collapsable hood?

Do you (errr would an amateur with a Sony 707) typically remove the
hood when storing the camera to a bag or would one typically leave
it on similar to a UV filter for lens protection?

TIA, photoave

 

[E. Blues]

Hi,
What are the pros and cons of a metal lens hood as opposed to a
collapsable hood?

Do you (errr would an amateur with a Sony 707) typically remove the
hood when storing the camera to a bag or would one typically leave
it on similar to a UV filter for lens protection?

TIA, photoave

As lens hoods, either metal or rubber will do the same job. Rubber has an advantage in that you can manually "tweak" its shape for specific shots to reduce flare from backlighting. I protect my lenses by being careful and not bashing them into anything. If your lens does take a hit, you're as much if not more likely to get a dent in the filter threads than damage to the front element. Either a hood or a fiter will protect the threads.

I'm not a filter user unless I need one for a specific effect. Digital processing has all but eliminated the need for special-effect filters, though.

There seems to be two schools of thought on "protective" filters, those who do and those who don't. Photographers on both sides of the issue do fine work, so it's probably not that big a deal, one way or the other.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the the alleged fragility of the front lens element, and its effect on image quality. It's the pretty part of the lens, but NOTHING is in focus at the front element, including dirt or even scratches. Obviously, cleaner is better, but it takes a LOT of dirt to have any effect on image quality unless you're shooting directly into a lot of light, a bad idea even with a clean front element. The REAR element is the one that's critical, and the 707 has no problem there. If you do decide to use a filter for protection, grit your teeth and pay the outrageous price for the best one you can find. Putting a $10 filter on a $600 lens doesn't make any sense, and yes, the expensive filers are that much better.

No reason I know of to remove a hood for storage, unless it's a big rigid one and you need the room in the bag. Another small advantage of the rubber hoods is that they collapse. A lens cap is the obvious choice for protection in the bag if you feel it's needed. Oh yeah, rubber is dirt cheap, too.

Sorry for the ramble. Probably way more than you wanted to know.

--EB

 

[Philly Wood]

Thank you all for your generously sharing your opinions.

Unsure about adding such a hood. I have a REALLY compact leather bag that will work if I DONT add such an accessory. At least not the metal one.

As for the filter.....I looked at a Heliopan UV Ultra coating and will probably add it to the short term want list. Right now I have a Rokunar UV that I got on ebay. I dont see a differernce with or without it but I havent really done any identical shots with the filter on and off viewing for differences between the images.

Almost for bragging rights and newby confidence, I wish I had splurged the extra 25-30 and got the Helio. (I could forgo a case of Guinness Draft)

BTW the exterior lens comments were luminating. Still would prefer to have a filter or cover on, especially when outdoors to protect against the elements as well as the potential for reducing haze and adding sharpness. I figure its like chicken soup.....it couldnt hurt.

-photoave

 

[E. Blues]

When you find one of those filters that adds sharpness, let me know. I could sure use one of those puppies. Filters frequently add something to an image, but it's never sharpness.

Also, no law says you couldn't screw on a filter AND a hood. Be doubly safe.

RoboPhoto!--EB

 

[Nevalti]

Unfortunately a filter can create a need for a different lens hood.

Any 'proper' hood should keep the sun off the front element but a filter can easily be 10mm or more further forward than the front lens element. Even a perfectly designed hood will not provide the shade to the filter that it provides to a naked lens.

A very good protection filter, like a HOYA Fusion ONE, should not present much of a problem but a cheap filter or a dirty filter can easily ruin the image.

Rubber hoods can be great but the best hood is the 'inverted' metal one by JJC for the Fuji 100F etc but it fits with a bespoke external thread. I do wish someone would make a range of them for various filter threads and various focal lengths. I WOULD buy one for each of my lenses. A simple lens cap can fit on the hood, rather than on the lens.




A hood need not spread outwards; it can spread inwards instead. It is the angle which counts!

 

[Murtaza Hashwani]

Thanks very much!

I agree on size : metal/plastic takes up a lot of space. That's why I like the collapsable rubber ones.