No more shooting with hood in reverse position?

Oh, and probably one fact may clarify my shooting style for you: I replaced the camera neck strap to 3-mm cord to save space inside the bag and simplify the placement.

RedFox88 wrote:

Then take the 5 seconds to put the lens hood on so it functions as a hood! Doh! 🤔🙄🤦‍♂️

Why would I need it unless there's a risk to contaminate or damage the filter in front of lens? Many people completely disregard the use of hood, and they're pretty happy.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Ignorance is bliss.

Tell it to Mr. Ken Rockwell, not me. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-hood.htm

voronspb wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Then take the 5 seconds to put the lens hood on so it functions as a hood! Doh! 🤔🙄🤦‍♂️

Why would I need it unless there's a risk to contaminate or damage the filter in front of lens? Many people completely disregard the use of hood, and they're pretty happy.

Many people actually use the hood instead of a protective filter. It depends on what, exactly, you are protecting against. And it’s a very common discussion that hasn’t been agreed yet 😜

Regards, Mike

voronspb wrote:

I've just took note of the fact that the control ring on genuine RF lenses is always located at the foremost part of the lens:

Before this moment, the hood in reverse position usually blocked only manual focusing. I like shooting with reverse hood, and I hated the foremost placement of zoom ring in my Tamron 70-300 mm lens, so I had to employ the push-pull zoom technique with that lens.

But now, with RF lenses you'll simply lose access to a certain camera setting until you remove the hood. Alternatively, you'll need to have two dials assigned to the same setting, or simply set the Lens Control Ring to OFF.

I wonder, if other people value shooting with stored hood as much as me, or it's just a minor inconvenience, doesn't worth mentioning?

Is there a reason to deliberately shoot with hood mounted reversed? I only reverse mine for storage in the bag. Just curious

voronspb wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Ignorance is bliss.

Tell it to Mr. Ken Rockwell, not me. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-hood.htm

While I just recently used a lens without the hood in Carlsbad Caverns, :), this statement of KR's didn't strike you as totally stupid?

Rick Knepper wrote:

voronspb wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Ignorance is bliss.

Tell it to Mr. Ken Rockwell, not me. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-hood.htm

While I just recently used a lens without the hood in Carlsbad Caverns, :), this statement of KR's didn't strike you as totally stupid?

Yes, amazing the crap you can get away when it's published on a web site.

voronspb wrote:

Before this moment, the hood in reverse position usually blocked only manual focusing. I like shooting with reverse hood,

I fail to see the problem here, Canon makes one minor ergonomic change and now you will be using the lens hood properly, like everyone else.

voronspb wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Ignorance is bliss.

Tell it to Mr. Ken Rockwell, not me. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-hood.htm

Hoods on most wide zooms are only really functional at the wide end. Still they protect the front from bumps. Also, I like zoom cases. I can leave the lens cap off since the hood protects the lens front when in the case.

There is one exception to the effective hood situation and that is the original 24-70 f/2.8. It was a reverse zoom in that is was longest at the short end and the hood was attached to the body and not the zoom extending part. Therefore the hood was just as functional at 70mm as it was at 24mm. Flippin brilliant design but most people thought is was weird.

Push-pull zooms get a similar reaction. Ideal for lens balance, at all focal lengths, on heavy long extending zooms. Push-pull just rubs people the wrong way.

Le Kilt wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

voronspb wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Ignorance is bliss.

Tell it to Mr. Ken Rockwell, not me. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-hood.htm

While I just recently used a lens without the hood in Carlsbad Caverns, :), this statement of KR's didn't strike you as totally stupid?

Yes, amazing the crap you can get away when it's published on a web site.

Isnt Rockwell known for including some pretty inane statements.

Lawn Lends wrote:

Le Kilt wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

voronspb wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Ignorance is bliss.

Tell it to Mr. Ken Rockwell, not me. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-hood.htm

While I just recently used a lens without the hood in Carlsbad Caverns, :), this statement of KR's didn't strike you as totally stupid?

Yes, amazing the crap you can get away when it's published on a web site.

Isnt Rockwell known for including some pretty inane statements.

He’s legendary for it.

NRBlack wrote:

There is one exception to the effective hood situation and that is the original 24-70 f/2.8. It was a reverse zoom in that is was longest at the short end and the hood was attached to the body and not the zoom extending part. Therefore the hood was just as functional at 70mm as it was at 24mm. Flippin brilliant design but most people thought is was weird.

Yes, I owned the old 24-70/2.8L. What's funny, I almost always left the hood at home because of its enormous size. In Iceland this led to a lot of pictures ruined by water drops on filter.

It was impossible to zoom the lens with hood in reverse position, which made me mad. While cycling, every other action required to start and finish shooting means that either your group will ride farther away, or other people will be waiting for you a bit longer under rain. Neither is good for you. Also I worried about the strength of hood bayonet, it was weak enough to be damaged during rough riding with camera on handlebar.

With 24-105/4L it became a lot more convenient, because I wasn't obliged to engage the hood every time before shooting. And also it became possible to carry the lens in bag with hood in shooting position (without the front cap) to save even more time.