To Hood or Not to Hood?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Hi Everyone:

I have three lenses. A 50 1.4 USM, 28-135 IS USM, and a 70-210 USM. The question I have is should I get hoods for these? Does a hood make that much a differance in image quality. I guess it does cut down on flare, but what about color and contrast? I am trying to decide if I should outfit them all with hoods.

Thanks John

-- John (wolverine@nf.sympatico.ca), March 18, 2002

Answers

Hoods are cumbersome, bulky and inconvenient. They are also, in the case of Canon's dedicated lens hoods, bloody expensive for what they are. ($30 US for a simple tube of plastic?)

However, they do help protect the lens from physical blows, they reduce the risk of lens flare and under some conditions they do improve contrast by preventing stray light from hitting the lens surface.

Do I use them? Usually. Do pros? They seem to. Should you? Up to you, I'd say. Try buying a hood for one of your lenses and then shoot a roll of film of different subjects - with hood and without and see.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), March 18, 2002.


They don't hurt so why not. As long as you don't mind the price and inconvenience of carrying them, there are certainly situations in which they will help. Some, maybe most, of the time they will make no difference at all, but when you need them, you need them.

Hoods on zooms aren't as effective as those on primes. A hood that doesn't vignette at 28mm won't be very efficient at 135mm. Ditto for 70mm and 210mm.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002.


Hi John,

I think a hood dramatically increases color and contrast especially on MY zoom lenses. But there are times that hoods are not appropriate. So, in response to your question, I only have more questions:

• Do you shoot with camera-mounted flash? A hood is sure to create shadows on wide-angle shots and should be removed.
• Do you shoot macro? If so, the hood can cut down on frontal lighting of your subject. and prevent mounting of macro flash units.
• Do you use large filters (e.g. Cokin / Lee system, or via step-up rings? A hood will just not fit.
• Does your lens already have a hood? (e.g. EF 200mm f/2.8 - the original version)
• Do you use a filter? Some lenses (e.g. your EF 50mm f/1.4 USM) have a very deep throat that acts an intrinsic hood. Adding filters brings the first piece of glass to the front, making a hood is even more important.

So maybe you don't need a hood :-)

-- Julian Loke (elan7e-owner@yahoogroups.com), March 18, 2002.


I use them. They're light enough not to count. I never use filters as lens protectors (though if I shot a lot on salt water I might), so I value hoods as real guardians of the front element. They will prevent most if not all careless fingerprints, and much other crud. I've worked this way for 25 years and rarely need to do more than lightly brush off a little dust from the front element. If I lived in an urban area with possibly noxious air polution, I'd probably have to clean with lens cleaner more often.

If I were in the habit of using UV/skylight filters just as "clear lens protectors", the hood would probably be even more important for preventing flare unless you use premium filters, since (a) the filter glass is right out front and (b) its coating may not be as good as the lens coating. And flare IS a major reason for reduced contrast and color saturation.

If the hood for the 50mm f1.4 attaches to the main lens body, rather than to the section that moves out when focusing close, it can further help you by protecting the rather delicate moving section from impacts. That's a real help since lenses that focus externally with AF have to be built much lighter than older classic MF designs. If your lenses are Internal focussing designs, this paragraph doesn't apply.

On a premium zoom like the 28-70 f2.8 L, the hood and lens are cleverly designed so that the flare protection is optimum no matter what focal length you set, and the hood protects the extended and vulnerable barrel. The idea only works with lenses that lengthen when zoomed wider, though.

-- Jonathan L Barber (jbarber1@nycap.rr.com), March 18, 2002.


Hood. They look cool as well as protecting the lens from flare and odd knocks.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 18, 2002.


Hood. I agree with Lee's statement: they look cool as well as protecting against flare and knocks.

I have Canon plastic hoods for all my Canon lenses, although I have to admit I detest the flower-shaped hoods such as the one for the 28- 135 IS. Fortunately, that's the only lens I have that uses a flower- shaped hood.

The reason I don't like flower-shaped hoods is that it detracts from an additional benefit of hard hoods: you can set the lens hood down on a flat surface without fear of damaging the front/rear elements and without fear that the lens will roll away. You can also slot the lens down into your bag with the front lens cap off because the hood will protect it. Regular round hoods sit quite nicely on a flat surface just like an upside-down drinking cup. Having a flower- shaped hood like the 28-135 IS hood means it won't stand on its hood. Since the "petals" of the hood are of unequal length, you have to place the lens on its side when setting it down. A flower- shaped hood also is harder to slot into your bag because it catches on the side of the bag. In a bag with dividers removed, the lens simply falls over.

I never do anywhere without my hoods.

Finally, buy L-lenses whenever you can. The hoods are included! And the L hoods are much nicer, with a thicker, tougher plastic.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002.


hmm. a rubber or not? and if, one of those new "perfect" ribbed ones for her pleasure?

couldn't hurt and it protects from stray particles entering places you don't want them to. don't forget that abstinence is always the best protection, however.

-- m. lohninger (anavrin@mac.com), March 19, 2002.


" Nothing screams amatuer like shooting without a hood."

-- J.Horton (masssalt@yahoo.com), March 19, 2002.

This picture by Jeffrey Rogers he posted in the non-archived forum at photo.net about a week ago shows what could happen to color and apparent sharpness in the picture when not using a hood in conditions that warrant use of a hood. According to his post, Jeffrey used his hand as a shade for the lens but let some light in through between his fingers. Kenneth

-- Kenneth Darling Soerensen (kenneth@darling.dk), March 19, 2002.


flare can be a nice thing:



-- m. lohninger (anavrin@mac.com), March 19, 2002.


Only if you want it.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 19, 2002.

I would like to thank everyone for your help! I have taken all of your answers into account. What I am going to do, is buy a hood for the 28-135 and do whay NK Guy suggested. Compare images. I did that before with UV filters, only to find out that there was an amazing differance in image quality(No filter-Better picture). That is another reason why I will start with the 28-135. I don't like using filters, and that lens is the biggest. So at the very least, the hood will offer protection for the front element.

Thanks Again Everyone!

-- John (wolverine@nf.sympatico.ca), March 20, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ