Do you use a lens hood?

[nero120]

Hi guys,

I'm trying to figure out the benefits of using lens hoods. So what are your opinions? Do you use one all the time or just sometimes? What benefits do you feel it delivers for you? Does it make a huge difference to your pictures?

[First Light]

Hi nero120,

I aways use a lens hood. Why? Because...

It reduces the likelihood of lens flare.
It protects the front of the lens. (I'm less likely to touch the front lens element or filter if a hood is sticking out.)
It warns amateurs to "back off, a pro is here".:p
I've gotten so used to them that a lens looks naked without a hood.:eek:On second thought, forget #3 and #4.

I attribute the lens hood and front filter on my ZD 50-200mm lens from saving it and my camera when they tumbled off a tall tripod one evening while setting up for a moon shot (I forgot to lock my quick-release plate). The lens and camera landed on the hood which shattered, absorbing most of the energy of the impact. Pieces of the hood drove into the filter which protected the front element. I immediately ordered a replacment Olympus hood from B&H.

Lens hoods are a pain. They don't pack well and I'm always worried about breaking them (Olympus hoods are plastic). My ZD 150mm lens is heavy and the lens hood feels flimsy when it is reversed on the lens for storage. I can see the weight of the lens breaking it if it gets handled roughly. But once the hood is mounted for use, it is fine and is very sturdy. They are worth the pain and effort because of #1 and #2 above.

[mckennma]

I reverse the lens hood and slide it over the lens and lock it for traveling. They stay on pretty well. Some places I tour freak out with the extra 3-4" from the lens hood on the 50-200. I usually retract the lens fully and reverse the lens hood.

I use it outside shooting with the sun in front of me to reduce lens flare. It definitely looks cool and professional having it on.

[Pille]

Yep, the hoods are always on. Why? To reduce lens flare and protect the glass from any flying junk thrown up by race cars (like small or not-so-small rocks).

And yeah, what others said - it looks cool too :D

[Henk Peter]

Always on: reduce lens flare and for protection.

[olddigiman]

Always on: reduce lens flare and for protection.

Ditto

[jebir]

Always use it!

A hood will give you more contrasty images (than without) even if you shoot in diffuse light or with the sun in your back.

Cheers, Jens.

[Prairie]

It protects the front of the lens. (I'm less likely to touch the front lens element or filter if a hood is sticking out.)

Indeed!

[tspore]

essential. No benefits not to use one.

[nero120]

Thanks guys, some really good info there. So is there any situation when using a lens hood would be unnecessary? What about at night, cloudy days, etc?

[mckennma]

I use it at night for glare from lights. Headlights, street lights, etc. can cause all sorts of issues.

[First Light]

Thanks guys, some really good info there. So is there any situation when using a lens hood would be unnecessary? What about at night, cloudy days, etc?
Nope. I can't think of any reason not to use a lens hood. But there is a reason to purchase additional third-party lens hoods. Most of the Olympus hoods do not allow easy access to a polarizer. If you plan to use a polarizer, I would recommend purchasing a hood that you can screw onto the front of the polarizer. This is an important consideration when purchasing a low-profile polarizer because some of them do not have front filter threads, making it impossible to add a hood.

It should be noted that there a few Zuiko Digital (ZD) lenses that are unique with regard to lens hoods.

The lens hood on the ultra-wide ZD 7-14mm lens is permanently attached in order to protect its bulging front element. (Is the ZD 8mm fisheye the same way?)
The ZD 35mm macro does not include a lens hood. The front element is so deep inside the lens body that the body, itself, probably serves as the hood. This is known as "self hood".:D
I've heard (perhaps someone else can confirm) that some of the new super-high grade lenses (like the ZD 90-250mm) have a door or flap in the hood which allows the shooter to rotate a polarizer, making the factory hood usable with a polarizer. I sure wish that all of my ZD lenses had this feature!!!!

[tspore]

The 35-100mm does have a slot for a polarizer adjustment. But the 90-250mm doesn't have one. (I don't want to know how much a polarizer is for that lens!!!)

[Michael Meissner]

Thanks guys, some really good info there. So is there any situation when using a lens hood would be unnecessary? What about at night, cloudy days, etc?
I would imagine using a 50mm macro lens (especially with the EX-25) and photographing bugs up close would be one case where the lens hood would not be useful (I don't think the 35mm has a lens hood, but if it does, it would apply even more to that lens).

There are also some reports of the 14-45mm vignetting if shot wide open at 14mm with the hood on.

[windsprite]

I usually use the hood to protect the lens and shut out glare, but I sometimes remove it from the 50-200 in order not to freak people out.

[barondla]

I almost always use lens hoods. In an interview once a lens designer ( don't remember the man or company) said a lens hood added from 10-20% greater contrast on multicoated lenses and even more on single coated lenses. That was good enough for me.
I don't use one on my 14-45 and the E300 builtin flash. It will vignette. I also wouldn't always use the hood in extreme macro situations. Here all the working distance possible is needed and if using a flash it is hard to get the light to the subject. Even if the flash is used off camera. I also ran into another "catch" with my new Pentax 100mm Macro. The hood fits around the lens like the Olympus 40-150. At 1/2 to lifesize the front element is even with the hood so it doesn't do anything. Its okay, because the fron element is still recessed quite a bit. Big diamater lens shades can also reduce how low to the ground you get with macros.
You will see lots of shades with little windows for pola filters. The Pentax kit lenses even have them as do many of their other new lenses. I am surprised this has taken so long to happen. I guess it was a lot harder to do with metal shades. Macro would have to have a 2.5 inch door in the hood to work. I love lens hoods. I even buy neat ones from other brands. The bayonet mounting has kind of stopped that.:D
thanks
barondla

[First Light]

Yes, I can! Try using the built in flash of the E-500 and the lens hood of 14-45mm at the wide angle range. ...
Hi Josef,

That's a good one! If I had an E-300, E-500 or E-330 and I wanted to use the built-in flash then I would consider removing the lens hood, too.

[cyrtolite]

No reason not to.

[Cephalotus]

always except macro and wide angle + built in flash

[Whorehay]

I never use them. The cap for the 14-45 is too difficult for me to get out and put back in (putting back in is the hard one) when the hood is on. Never have it on the 50mm macro (blocks all the light!) and the 40-150mm doesn't fit in my bag when the hood is out, and it is pretty awkward when it is on backwards if I want to use it.

[OFN]

Always,
need i say more?
http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=3373

[AnnF]

I brought my 14-54, 50-200, & 11-22 lenses on my WA trip. I brought the hood. Well, I didn't realize that I'd brought the hood to the wide angle until I tried putting in on the other lenses. I did get vignetting when I used it on the wide angle so it sat in the suitcase the rest of the week. There were times during the trip I wished I had it for the other lenses.:(

Anyway, I dropped the 50-200 on the beach. The lid popped off and the lens was scratched. You can see the scratch, too, right in the center of the glass. But you can't tell in the pictures. Now I'm going to have to see what Oly can do about it.:rolleyes: Had I used the hood, this wouldn't have happened.

Ann

[mckennma]

B&H
14.95
67mm UV filter

I am ordering one tonight for my 50-200. I have not been using it lately. Been working with my 14-54, which has one on it. They should come with the lens to begin with.

[tspore]

I brought my 14-54, 50-200, & 11-22 lenses on my WA trip. I brought the hood. Well, I didn't realize that I'd brought the hood to the wide angle until I tried putting in on the other lenses. I did get vignetting when I used it on the wide angle so it sat in the suitcase the rest of the week. There were times during the trip I wished I had it for the other lenses.:(
Anyway, I dropped the 50-200 on the beach. The lid popped off and the lens was scratched. You can see the scratch, too, right in the center of the glass. But you can't tell in the pictures. Now I'm going to have to see what Oly can do about it.:rolleyes: Had I used the hood, this wouldn't have happened.
Ann

Tough break ann,
IF you can see the scratch on the photos, you may want to forget about getting it fixed, my guess $300-400.

If you do buy a UV filter for it, make sure you buy the best you can afford. The cheaper ones, degrade the image, lead to some image problems.

[mckennma]

Can you recommend a good 67mm filter to protect the $800 50-200?

B&H said the $15 General Brand /Tiffen is decent and most can't tell the difference in picture quality against the $50 B+W.

[OzRay]

Can you recommend a good 67mm filter to protect the $800 50-200?

B&H said the $15 General Brand /Tiffen is decent and most can't tell the difference in picture quality against the $50 B+W.

I noticed a substantial improvement in quality when I changed my Hoya HMC UV filters to B&W MRC UV. I'd rather not put on a filter if it has to be a cheap brand.

On another note, my camera dealer said there's some guy in Japan that's doing a fairly good trade modifying lens hoods to provide them with a door (like in the 35-100mm hood) for turning a polarising filter.

Cheers

Ray

[James Pilcher]

Can you recommend a good 67mm filter to protect the $800 50-200?

B&H said the $15 General Brand /Tiffen is decent and most can't tell the difference in picture quality against the $50 B+W.

Get the B+W MRC UV. You have a more than decent lens with the Zuiko 50-200mm. Put a decent filter on it. If you buy the best, you'll never wonder if you made the right choice.

Personally, I use Heliopan. I believe Heliopan to be as good as B+W. Both have brass rings which resist binding, unlike aluminum.

[mckennma]

I was a bit surprised at B&H.

B+W 67mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter
Mfr# 66070236 • B&H# BWUVMC67
$49.95

What do you think about this filter?

[OzRay]

I was a bit surprised at B&H.

B+W 67mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter
Mfr# 66070236 • B&H# BWUVMC67
$49.95

What do you think about this filter?



The only one to get.

Cheers

Ray

[Mr. D]

Always use one except at times when using a flash.

[mckennma]

I don't use a flash. Many sites I go to don't allow a flash.

[AnnF]

Tough break ann,
IF you can see the scratch on the photos, you may want to forget about getting it fixed, my guess $300-400.

Tony, if you meant to say "can't", I think you're right. You can't tell any difference in the photos at all. I think it was the coating that got scratched. I will wait and see.

If I do get a filter for it, I will get a GOOD one for sure.

Ann

[Jamie]

Well I finally bought my E-500 2 Lens Kit last Wednesday, and since then I have been experimenting with the hoods. I like fact that the front element is protected by the hood, and I have not had any problems with the flash yet. I do see vignetting at the wide end with the 14-45, but the 40-150 is fine. My 14-45 hood does not fit that well, (the bayonet doesn't click) so I have put a small peice of tape on the inside surface of the hood itself where they mate. That surely stiffens things up enough. I do notice that the photos have better contrast when using the hoods; it's subtle, but it's there. For me, the protection factor is the biggest deal.

On a slightly related note, I purchased a HOYA UV Filter, and I am getting problems with flares when shooting towards the sun. It's nice to have, I just can't imagine scratching one of my lenses... so I don't mind the occasional flare.

[Amateur]

If the scratch does show up at all, you can minimize the impact on your images. Use a fine tip Sharpie (permanent marker) to blacken inside the scratch. I've done this before and it helps a bit. The scratch will be way out of focus anyway but when darkened, it wont reflect as much.

Aloha,
David

[Amateur]

14-54 mm, almost always

50-200mm, not so much.

aloha,
David

[jebir]

Hi David,

Use a fine tip Sharpie (permanent marker) to blacken inside the scratch. I've done this before and it helps a bit. The scratch will be way out of focus anyway but when darkened, it wont reflect as much.

thanks for that excellent trick!

Cheers, Jens.

[Amateur]

Hi Jens,
You are most welcome, that tip came from the proprietor of a local mom&pop camera shop, Kaimuki Camera.

Aloha
David

[Kyle Jones]

For me it depends on the lens. The 50-200 already looks like a laser cannon when fully extended; I don't need it to look any more intimidating. So I don't use the hood on that lens unless I know I'm shooting into the sun or when I'm shooting in the rain. In the rain, the hood keeps water off the front of the lens very well. I almost always use the hood on my wide angle lenses, the exception being when I'm using a polarizer. Maybe lensmakers will get smart and provide a cutout so you can adjust filters with the hood on, but until then it is too much trouble.

[tspore]

the 35-100 has a spot for a polarizer to mount on the front of the lens. It is Great. Of course that makes the lens even bigger. That hood is huge.

[Jamie]

Hey guys, I have to correct my statement earlier about the 14-45 vignetting. The problem with my lens hood not fastening properly, was not actually a problem. It takes an excessive amount of force to rotate the hood to the point where it snaps on, and I was not ready to push my new lens that hard. I eventually did rotate the hood a bit more and it snapped on properly.
After that, I noticed that the 'petals' of the lens hood were now lining up properly with the rectangular format of the image.

At that point, I found out that was the reason for my vignetting.

[mckennma]

I line up the lens hood on the dot of the lens and rotate it to lock. You should not have to force anything.

[cisaaca]

I use it all the time. There was once when I dropped a lens and the lens hood took most of the impact and the lens was ok... whew... never used a lens without one since.

[deevee]

if the lens comes w it then yes, i 'll have it on all the time except the occasions where i have to use a split ND filter.
It reduces glares and protects the lens ; i don't use a filter so the hood is quite important for extra protection.
it looks good but that's not a functional feature :D

[Jamie]

I understand that, I was not saying that it did not.

[tspore]

wow here is an old thread someone revived.

[Henk Peter]

wow here is an old thread someone revived.

And this is not the only one..

[Godfrey]

Always. Only if I physically cannot fit the lens hood due to a setup (in some tabletop work for instance) do I leave it off.

Good protection for the lens, improved flare resistance, etc. On some older lenses, I bought a lens hood the day I got the lens, fitted it and have never removed it.

Godfrey

[keggo]

Be happy Oly gives hoods with their lenses... all the Canon lenses I ever bought NEVER came with them... you had to purchase them separately! So stupid. Anyway, I have to say I use mine all the time... and for the reasons other people have mentioned!

[davidh202]

Outdoors always except for the 50mm at macro range. Indoor house shooting, I don't bother putting it on.
David

[Godfrey]

FYI: Canon's L lenses all come with hoods.

Godfrey

[matthew]

... and the cheapest L-lens is $560 at B&H. For non-L-lenses, hoods generally add about 20-30$ to the price. But there are always exceptions; Canon doesn't put any of its EF-S lenses into the "L" class, meaning that even when someone buys the exceptional $1000 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, they have to shell out for a hood. In this case, it's another $50.

... and this annoys Canon users, as well.

[Kenneth T. Lightcap]

I always use them, and UV filters too. I have rubber lens hoods that collapse on most of my lenses. They prevent damage to your expensive glass. :doh:

[deep]

I do quite a bit of shooting in rugged situations, where accidents can happen. With a strap securely round my neck and a hood on the front, I've never yet damaged an expensive body or lens. The plastic hoods get scratched but I've never broken one of those either (I try to be careful, honest!). Even though getting the lens cap off the hood on my Oly lenses is annoying, it's become a reflex instinct to have that hood on. Keeps the rain off, keeps the flies away, keeps my sticky fingers off - even keeps the sun off at times.

Like others though, I take it off using on-camera flash with a wide lens, which isn't an everyday thing for me. I also take it off for macro with wider lenses because of the direct shading effect.

I used to think lens hoods were ugly. What a stupid reason for not using one! Thankfully, I've grown up a little ....

Don.

[ckrueger]

I can't think of any reason not to use a lens hood.

I use hoods except for three situations where they are a detriment:

1) They're big, and either won't fit in the bag or make me stick out too much when I want to be discreet.

2) If I have to shoot against glass, pressing the lens against the glass is more effective than pressing the hood against glass... especially if it's a petal hood.

3) Shooting macro they can shade the flash, preventing you from shooting anything but pure sidelight.

And please don't bring up Canon's hoods! They screw the customer horribly both for the price of hoods and for their refusal to include them with most lenses. Worse still, their hood designs suck! Anyone who has ever shot with a 16-35 or 17-40 knows the pain of Canon's poor hood design.

[250swb]

Always. Helps stop damage and of course cuts down flair that can be very subtle and only seen in the photo when you get home, and then you'd have wished you used a hood.

In answer to First Light the SWD 50-200mm also has a sliding trap door in the hood to adjust a filter by.

Steve

[er1kksen]

Always, except with flash.

[sr20demn]

The 35-100 hood is just big. I try to use it more now cuase it really helps and It will save me from an accident!

I wish there was something smaller.

[heavy wind lover]

always in bright lights,, other situations it depends,,

Derry

[payasam]

First Light's #1 and #2. The ZD 35/3.5 does not need a hood because its front element is deeply recessed. When I was learning photography at the beginning of the 1960s, I was taught that there is no photograph which cannot be improved with the use of a hood.

[nomix]

Every single time.

Think about it, if you get light from the sides, the hood will help, and even if there isn't, it helps with protecting the front element.

Even shooting indoor sports, I use it. I've got the crazy idea that it will work as a 'crumple zone', it will break, using up a lot of the energy from a football or something like that instead of the front element and the lens itself.

[grizz]

Always with zd50, and 40-150.

With 14-54 only if i didn't use CPL

[Eric A.]

I bought a pre-owned Hasselblad matte box from B&H for $50 and modified it to 62mm so I can use it in studio on my E-10. The E-10 lens design allows for the weight of the matte box. Works very well around lighting setups where the tulip shade doesn't cut it.