The main purpose of a lens hood is to make the camera look really cool, but this an come at the cost of not being able to stow the camera easily .
Very useful indeed though if you wish to shoot photos in which the light is not coming from behind you (ie. the more interesting photos)..
Useful too for protecting the lens front against knocks. If you have a decent UV filter, and you should have if you don't want it to colour cast or vignette, then you'll not want to spend $40+ on replacing it..
Never buy a lens on which you cannot stow the lens hood back to front or with a lens cap that doesn't have one of those centre squeeze clips. It's all about ease of use..
John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..
Lens Flare - Lens Hoods.
Sample images .. good article.
Http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/17_35_Di/index3.html.
Bill,Jr'I kind of like the Earth, it's where I keep all my Stuff.'Website; http://www.pbase.com/wboth125 Lake Wylie, SC..
Travelinbri wrote:.
Dag it cramps style when traveling... how much does it:A) Help the IQ by shielding the camera from the bright sun.
Depending on the lens and circumstances a bit to loads. Even if the sun isn't that bright you may find it helps sharpness..
B) Protect the actual lens if you already have a UV protective filter.
Not much but then again, I consider UV filters as protection nonsense for most lenses..
A rubber hood that screws on your filter thread hardly adds any bulk.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..
The lens flare you get from having a bright light source outside the photo area but within sight of the lens surface is quite obvious and can be shown even in a small photo. Of course a lens hood that blocks that source from the lens is going to improve a photo..
But all ambient light entering the lens that isnt part of the image you are capturing causes a degree of fogging because of extraneous light that reaches the sensor. The effect is subtle and results in a slight loss of contrast. The contrast is easy to get back in PP but you lose a little dynamic range making the correction..
Lenses or cameras with a good zoom range have lens hoods that can only be fully effective at the widest angle. If it were effective at telephoto it would vignette at wide. So the lens hoods that come with cameras and zoom lenses are a compromise. But blocking the light even from the widest angle gives a slight improvement at telephoto and a subtle but often noticeable improvement at wide..
People who regularly use lens hoods are less likely to have two extra air/glass surfaces between the lens and subject for protection. The difference there is even more subtle..
If you have to attach the hood with each use because of space or have to carry a larger bag the inconvenience might not equate except in cases of a bright light source in front of the camera. But a lens hood is a cheap way to tweak up the contrast of your lens...
Other than my fisheye I keep a hood on every lens I use.Caveats:.
- Stacking filters is always a bad idea and stacking a pol filter under a hood when using a w/a lens is a recipe for vignetting..
- When non-zooms were prevalent, hoods provided effective protection from damage and flare about equally. With zoom lenses, the hood's coverage is limited to the lens widest zoom setting, so a hood on a 70~300 covers the 70mm setting and is nothing like the hood on a non-zoom 300mm lens would be. The hood for Nikon's 18~200 (to pick one popular example) is the HB-35. Compare it to the HN-30 (for the 200/4) to see what I mean.Henry PosnerB&H Photo-Video, Inc...
Henryp wrote:.
Other than my fisheye I keep a hood on every lens I use..
Most fisheye lenses come with a built-in hood anyway.
Caveats:- Stacking filters is always a bad idea and stacking a pol filterunder a hood when using a w/a lens is a recipe for vignetting..
Personally I don't understand that logic, stacking a graduated ND and a polorizer is pretty common and one reason that low profile filters are popular. On many cameras, the hood is not mounted on the same threads as the filters so mounting a filter has absolutely no effect on total hood length or the effects of vignetting..
- When non-zooms were prevalent, hoods provided effective protectionfrom damage and flare about equally. With zoom lenses, the hood'scoverage is limited to the lens widest zoom setting, so a hood on a70~300 covers the 70mm setting and is nothing like the hood on anon-zoom 300mm lens would be. The hood for Nikon's 18~200 (to pickone popular example) is the HB-35. Compare it to the HN-30 (for the200/4) to see what I mean..
Agree with the theory, but tulip hoods were designed and introduced to cover the requirements of zoom lenses. Shooting into the sun negates any hood design advantages anyway..
Henry PosnerB&H Photo-Video, Inc..
IMO hoods are a relative advantage and something to look into when lens flare is your biggest problem. For many people still working on correct exposure, composition, and lighting techniques - they're not a priority. For someone taking travel snapshots - in most cases a hand or card to shade the lens will do the job just fine thank you..
It's worth noting that most point and shoot cameras come with no provision for lens hoods. For someone doing technical photography with a professional grade camera the stakes and expectations are a little different...
B Gavin wrote:.
Henryp wrote:.
Other than my fisheye I keep a hood on every lens I use..
Most fisheye lenses come with a built-in hood anyway.
Actually, most fisheye lenses don't have any hood at all..
Caveats:- Stacking filters is always a bad idea and stacking a pol filterunder a hood when using a w/a lens is a recipe for vignetting..
Personally I don't understand that logic, stacking a graduated ND anda polorizer is pretty common and one reason that low profile filtersare popular..
Stacking filters in general is a bad idea and vignetting is only one reason, although it's serious enough if one of the ones you're stacking is a polarizer and the lens is w/a. The other is that each filter has two air-to-glass surfaces and each is a breeding ground for flare..
IMO hoods are a relative advantage and something to look into whenlens flare is your biggest problem. For many people still working oncorrect exposure, composition, and lighting techniques - they're nota priority. For someone taking travel snapshots - in most cases ahand or card to shade the lens will do the job just fine thank you..
For that kind of newbie, juggling a camera, lens and then using one had to shade the front of the lens or hold a card is really piling it on, isn't it. The idea is to simplify things and the hood means your hypothetical newbie has one less thing to worry about..
It's worth noting that most point and shoot cameras come with noprovision for lens hoods..
Since the OP asked about hoods in particular I presumed we weren't talking about an entry-level point-n-shoot camera..
For someone doing technical photographywith a professional grade camera the stakes and expectations are alittle different..
Isn't that why beginners come to this forum so those of us with decades of experience can help them over the rough patches? And, I think the parent trying to get nice images of junior with his (her) first slr is entitled to have "expectations" too..
Henry PosnerB&H Photo-Video, Inc...
Henryp wrote:.
B Gavin wrote:.
Henryp wrote:.
Other than my fisheye I keep a hood on every lens I use..
Most fisheye lenses come with a built-in hood anyway.
Actually, most fisheye lenses don't have any hood at all..
Caveats:- Stacking filters is always a bad idea and stacking a pol filterunder a hood when using a w/a lens is a recipe for vignetting..
Personally I don't understand that logic, stacking a graduated ND anda polorizer is pretty common and one reason that low profile filtersare popular..
Stacking filters in general is a bad idea and vignetting is only onereason, although it's serious enough if one of the ones you'restacking is a polarizer and the lens is w/a. The other is that eachfilter has two air-to-glass surfaces and each is a breeding groundfor flare..
IMO hoods are a relative advantage and something to look into whenlens flare is your biggest problem. For many people still working oncorrect exposure, composition, and lighting techniques - they're nota priority. For someone taking travel snapshots - in most cases ahand or card to shade the lens will do the job just fine thank you..
For that kind of newbie, juggling a camera, lens and then using onehad to shade the front of the lens or hold a card is really piling iton, isn't it. The idea is to simplify things and the hood means yourhypothetical newbie has one less thing to worry about..
It's worth noting that most point and shoot cameras come with noprovision for lens hoods..
Since the OP asked about hoods in particular I presumed we weren'ttalking about an entry-level point-n-shoot camera..
For someone doing technical photographywith a professional grade camera the stakes and expectations are alittle different..
Isn't that why beginners come to this forum so those of us withdecades of experience can help them over the rough patches? And, Ithink the parent trying to get nice images of junior with his (her)first slr is entitled to have "expectations" too..
Henry PosnerB&H Photo-Video, Inc..
Henry, with all due respect, we could argue about what 'most' means and about exactly what constitutes a 'true fisheye' and it would be a waste of time..
I did take a few minutes to read through some of the original posters history to get an idea of their skill level, equipment and interest. As of last month the OP apparently had a Canon 10-22 EF-S, Canon 17-55 IS, Canon 70-300 IS and a Canon 50 1.4 prime. All of those lenses I believe take bayonet mounted hoods and adding filters will not add to the hood length..
I'm personally going to plead guilty to a lot of bad habits because I stack filters on ocassion, and ocassionally take shots while bracing the camera against the arm that is holding the flash overhead. And holding the lens by the very end will on ocassion let me shade the lens and still grip the camera firmly with two hands. It works for me when the conditions are right..
The mention that many point and shoot cameras have no provision for a lens hood should have very little to do with what the OP owns. If hoods were so indispensible - every camera in the world would be equipped with them. Some people have no use for filters - some people have no use for lens hoods either. A lot of it depends on their budget and how much trouble the photographer feels the photo is worth..
Yup - I thought I tried to offer some advice that I thought might be useful and practical at what I percieved was their level. Because as you mentioned - everyone is entitled to have expectations - and one of them should be - that photography should be fun, and the photographer's skill should be more essential than a perfect list of equipment..
BG..
I appreciate all the advice given here, it really is helpign me learn in leaps and bounds. As for the lens hood, it makes the camera stand out a lot more, and while it is reversible for storage, if you want to be able to reach in and get a shot quickly you have two choices if the lens hood is necessary: A) Wear the camera around the neck walking around, lens hood on (using the 30D and 17-55 IS as an example), or B) get the camera out, take the lens hood off, put it back on the right way, then take the picture, doable for landscapes, a lot less so for taking pics on the move....
Just trying to get an idea if the UV filter would have protected the lens from glare and harm as much as the hood, which I gather it wont... thanks!.
-TBRI..