Question about Hoods

[nkeevers]

Comments? I was wondering what exactly these do for your images. I don't own one right now but was looking into them recently.

[Codebreaker]

What sort of Hoods? For a lens or for a screen?

Colin

[graficalicus]

there's a bunch that hang around down by the convenience store after dark. I don't know what they do, though.... :confused:

Actually, they're for directing lighting when photographing small objects (or objects small enough to fit inside them). Sort of like a light box that you place things in to take pictures, but I'm not a photographer ("Obviously", says the chorus...)

Other hoods are additions that go over the camera lens to block ambient light from shining right on the lens and creating a glare.

[nkeevers]

Ha ha! You're sooo funny! Sorry I didn't specify; I'm talking about lens hoods. And if they are worth the buy. I was recently at an evening horseshow (outside) and the guy next to me had a hood on his lens. Was wondering how well they worked. I assumed he was using it because of all the lights. But I took pictures also (w/o a hood) and I thought my pictures were fine. I'm wondering what the difference would have been.

[Codebreaker]

In my opinion -yes they are worth it. They keep off sidelight which can result in flare and highlighting of the dirt on the front piece of glass.

What lens do you have?

Colin

[nkeevers]

I have a Rebel XT with two lenses - IS zoom 70-300mm and an IS 17-85mm.

[Codebreaker]

Make sure you get hoods that suit the focal length of the lens otherwise you'll notice some drop off of light around the edges - vignetting.

I'd recommend the Canon brand to fit the Canon Lenses.

With the 17-85mm you may need to take of the hood when using the built in flash as it can block the light to the subject.

Colin

[PaulH]

All my Nikon lenses came with hoods. I'm surprised yours didn't.

I do keep one on my 18-70, but I don't on any long lenses.

Main reason I do though is it guards some against bumps.

What they do is reduce flare and / or washout from side light.

I've been known to use a hat or arm to lock out light.

I have a nephew that is a pro photo journalist - his comment - never use them :)

His solution, shoot shoot shoot, and crop :)

[Codebreaker]

I thought at first that said....

'shoot, shoot, shoot and cr*p'

Quantity instead of quality I guess :-)


Colin

[nkeevers]

Good advice both ways! Guess I'll have to think about it for a while before I decide

[tomlaronge]

Norma,
Like most photographic accessories, lens hoods can be a true benefit in several different ways, but they are not needed in every picture opportunity. However, if needed and not present, you lose.
Nikon and others do not give anything away so you had better believe that if they give you a lens hood/sunshade, there is a good reason. Among their purposes and some of this was said above by others you might consider:
1) Front element and filter threads protections.
2) Deterrent to getting finger prints on the lens.
3) Help in keeping dirt, abrasives and moisture off of the lens.
4) REDUCE FLARE AND GLARE FROM DIRECTIONAL ILLUMINATION!
5) If your are vain, these often look good, Tee Hee.
For the whatever it may be worth department, I believe in lens hoods and use mine all the time. By the way, take a look at the recessed lens element construction in an expensive macro lens. This recessed construction serves as a lens hood/light baffle.
Happy shooting.
Tom

[nkeevers]

Tom, thanks for the info. Canon doesn't give anything away either. It cost me a fortune just getting the two IS lenses for my camera at the onset. How much do hoods run anyway? I bet an arm and a leg at least.:D :D

[msbrad]

I'll respond now that I know what kind of hood you are into.
My Sony came with a hood, but I lost it somewhere. It is $50.00 to erplace it. I did to go North Tampa photography and bought a generic one for 6.99.
It is sorta...ok...since I do not have the 'real' one.
m

[nkeevers]

Yeah, I figured they were not cheap - I'll be buying from Canon and I haven't been to their site yet to look around.

I'm in the middle of a crisis because I just lost all my artwork and effects.:eek: (in another thread)

[tomlaronge]

Norma,
I think that most modern OEM hoods are in the price range of $20 to $40. Take a look on B & H Photo's website. These are cheap insurance for good lenses and great for picture improvements when light conditions demand their use. Many years ago I was shooting pictures of Anasazi ruins in Mesa Verde at early morning hours and these lens hoods saved the day.
Good luck. Tom

[Africa1]

Hi

You can make your own lenshoods. go to this site www.lenshoods.co.uk (http://www.lenshoods.co.uk)

Mark

[nkeevers]

Thanks Tom for the tip on B&H. And Mark for the link. Good idea!

[LeeOtsubo]

For Canon, always buy Canon L lenses. All L lenses come with a hood.:D

Seriously, a hood is indispensible in some circumstances and totally useless in others. On my Canon 17-40L, I never use the hood because it's the size of a dinner plate and about as deep. It's totally useless. On my 50/1.8, I never use a hood because it's a low-light lens and flare is hardly ever a problem. Besides, at US$70, it's no big deal if the front element gets whacked. On my 100/2.8 macro, I never use a hood because it scares the dickens out of little bugs and other critters I'm trying to photograph. It even scares the flowers.

On my 70-200/4L, 70-200/2.8L and 100-400L, I always use a hood because I'm generally shooting those in the sun AND I want to protect the front element from spit, snot, sweat and other bodily fluids flying around sports fields.:D

Tip for storing hoods: Mount them backwards on the lens. Takes up a lot less space in your camera bag.

Lee Otsubo
www.thedigitalphotoguy.com

[nkeevers]

Lee, I agree. I wouldn't buy anything else but Canon for my camera. Thanks for the advice about the hoods. Got a little chuckle there:D :D I'm going to remember all the tips I've received when I get down to buying one.