Lens Hoods

I've been using a SLR for years and have never bothered with 'lens
hoods', except on a 300 mm telephoto, where the lens hood is built-in.

In the process of upgrading to a D-SLR, I've noticed that lens hoods are
pushed very hard.

Is this because the different optics of a D-SLR requires them?

Or is this because they are a quick and easy, high-margin extra?

--
Larry Stoter

Larry Stoter wrote:
I've been using a SLR for years and have never bothered with 'lens
hoods', except on a 300 mm telephoto, where the lens hood is built-in.

In the process of upgrading to a D-SLR, I've noticed that lens hoods are
pushed very hard.

Is this because the different optics of a D-SLR requires them?

Or is this because they are a quick and easy, high-margin extra?



They may well be for lots of Canon lenses (£18 to £50 essential add-on,
not included in the price of the lens), but they are not for Konica
Minolta/Sony for example - the hoods have always been supplied with the
lenses. In the dim and fading past, lens cases were supplied too...
Sigma still does that.

In fact it can be very hard to get a replacement lens hood for those
makes which don't try screw extra profit by selling their lenses without
hoods.

David

According to Larry Stoter :
I've been using a SLR for years and have never bothered with 'lens
hoods', except on a 300 mm telephoto, where the lens hood is built-in.

In the process of upgrading to a D-SLR, I've noticed that lens hoods are
pushed very hard.

Is this because the different optics of a D-SLR requires them?

Or is this because they are a quick and easy, high-margin extra?

It is because:

1) They *do* help in certain lighting conditions. An example was
at a graduation exercise for a friend's daughter, I was using
the 28-105mm on a Kodak/Nikon NC2000e/c (Nikon N90s body
converted to digital by a replacement back and subbase by Kodak
for the AP). I was not able to chose my angle and position, and
wound up with significant flare (which mostly cleaned up in
post-processing, but which lost some dynamic range). I did not
have the lens hood for that lens at the time. I do, now.

2) Protection! Today's lens hoods (at least for Nikkor lenses)
are a tough plastic which absorbs bumps against walls and other
things, instead of letting the impact distort the filter thread,
and possibly otherwise damage the lens. (And it also keeps the
body from receiving as much shock from such a bump.)

Granted -- it projects out more, and increases the *chances* of
such a bump.

So -- I use lens hoods on almost every lens which I have for use
on the D70 (and eventually the D200, when I get it.) The bayonet mount
for lens hoods on Nikkor lenses allows easy reversal of the hood to
minimize storage size in the camera bag.

Some lenses, such as the 18-70mm "kit" lens for the D70, come
with a lens hood as part of the package. (Granted, I bought the lens
later, so I don't know for sure whether it comes with the lens as part
of a kit, but it certainly comes witt the lens when it is bought
separately.

Hmm ... it may be that some of the less reputable vendors are
saving aside the lens hood, as they do with the battery charger and some
other standard "supplied with" accessories when selling the cameras, and
then try to sell it to you as a "needed part" when you buy the camera,
with the total effect of rising their supposed "bargain price" to equal
the normal price of the camera.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Larry Stoter wrote:
I've been using a SLR for years and have never bothered with 'lens
hoods', except on a 300 mm telephoto, where the lens hood is built-in.

In the process of upgrading to a D-SLR, I've noticed that lens hoods are
pushed very hard.


Most Nikon lenses now include a lens hood. So if you buy a Nikon lens,
you have to pay for the hood whether you want it or not.

Is this because the different optics of a D-SLR requires them?

No. The purpose of a lens hood is to prevent bright light entering the
lens at a high angle from causing reflections on the lens elements that
show up on the picture. You see this in the row of bright reflections
cascading across some pictures. A lens designed for use on SLR cameras
might have a large number of elements, each with the potential for
catching a reflection, but you also see these complex lenses on many
other kinds of cameras.

Some photographers also use lens hoods because of the element of
protection they give to a lens, especially blowing sand and water. The
lens hood can also absorb much of the impact of a dropped lens. It is a
lot cheaper to replace a lens hood than it is a lens! Lens hoods also
help to keep curious fingers away from the lens.

Lens hoods can cause vignetting at wide angles, especially if they are
bumped and knocked slightly askew of where they should be. They are
also one of those items (like lens caps) that are easily knocked off
the lens and broken or lost. Some lens hoods are better designed to
prevent this than others. A pro lens might have a locking mechanism on
its hood, for example, and the hood might be made of metal instead of
plastic. Lens hoods also can create a storage problem, especially on
long lenses. You will probably need a much larger case to store a lens
and hood than you would need for the lens alone, even if the hood is
reversed. Lens hoods can also interfere with on-camera flash, causing
deep shadows at the bottom of the picture.


Or is this because they are a quick and easy, high-margin extra?


Basically. Nevertheless, I prefer to use lens hoods most of the time. I
like the protective features of lens hoods, plus I like to take
pictures of sunsets and other pictures where I am likely to get a lot
of reflections. But if you plan to use lens hoods you should be aware
of their drawbacks and limitations and plan accordingly.

On 3 Aug 2006, cjcampbell wrote:

The
lens hood can also absorb much of the impact of a dropped lens. It is a
lot cheaper to replace a lens hood than it is a lens!

Yes! I dropped my 18-200 from about three feet onto asphalt. It bounced
down the driveway. The only thing that happened were dents in the lens hood
and the lens cap.

Don www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Larry Stoter wrote:
I've been using a SLR for years and have never bothered with 'lens
hoods', except on a 300 mm telephoto, where the lens hood is built-in.

In the process of upgrading to a D-SLR, I've noticed that lens hoods are
pushed very hard.

Is this because the different optics of a D-SLR requires them?

Or is this because they are a quick and easy, high-margin extra?


Some dealers push lens hoods and some don't. The dealers I deal with
don't. However, I use lens hoods because they do what they are designed
to do and besides that, imo, they are better lens protectors than UV
filters. Exception being when I'm confronted with winds blowing dirt
swirls, beach scenes, or inclement weather. Then I may use both a UV
filter and a lens hood. All my lenses have appropriate lens hoods and I
don't leave home without them.

Don Wiss wrote:
On 3 Aug 2006, cjcampbell wrote:

The
lens hood can also absorb much of the impact of a dropped lens. It is a
lot cheaper to replace a lens hood than it is a lens!

Yes! I dropped my 18-200 from about three feet onto asphalt. It bounced
down the driveway. The only thing that happened were dents in the lens hood
and the lens cap.

Yeah. But are you out of intensive care yet? The hood might have
protected the lens, but it does nothing to protect your heart. :-)

If you shoot in Raw, vignetting, the dark shadow halo that appears at
the edges of the frame can be removed easily in Photoshop's Raw menu
bar. All you have to do is slide a slider after you click on the
Vignetting tab.
Matt http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com
cjcampbell wrote:
Lens hoods can cause vignetting at wide angles, especially if they are
bumped and knocked slightly askew of where they should be. They are
also one of those items (like lens caps) that are easily knocked off
the lens and broken or lost. Some lens hoods are better designed to
prevent this than others. A pro lens might have a locking mechanism on
its hood, for example, and the hood might be made of metal instead of
plastic. Lens hoods also can create a storage problem, especially on
long lenses. You will probably need a much larger case to store a lens
and hood than you would need for the lens alone, even if the hood is
reversed. Lens hoods can also interfere with on-camera flash, causing
deep shadows at the bottom of the picture.


Or is this because they are a quick and easy, high-margin extra?


Basically. Nevertheless, I prefer to use lens hoods most of the time. I
like the protective features of lens hoods, plus I like to take
pictures of sunsets and other pictures where I am likely to get a lot
of reflections. But if you plan to use lens hoods you should be aware
of their drawbacks and limitations and plan accordingly.

On 3 Aug 2006, cjcampbell wrote:

Don Wiss wrote:
On 3 Aug 2006, cjcampbell wrote:

The
lens hood can also absorb much of the impact of a dropped lens. It is a
lot cheaper to replace a lens hood than it is a lens!

Yes! I dropped my 18-200 from about three feet onto asphalt. It bounced
down the driveway. The only thing that happened were dents in the lens hood
and the lens cap.

Yeah. But are you out of intensive care yet? The hood might have
protected the lens, but it does nothing to protect your heart. :-)

That is correct. I was mortified.

It was my very first stop on the first day of my Ireland trip. Previously I
had been using the holster case and lens case each hooked to a belt. This
was the first time that I was using a shoulder strap with the lens case
hooked to the side of the holster case. When on the belt I hadn't been
bothering to zip up the lens case cover. But when on the shoulder strap the
weight of the lens slides it down and the lens slipped right out of the
case. Had it broken, it wouldn't have just been the money, but I would have
had to go the entire trip with only the 12-24.

For those curious about the pictures, I haven't begun to process them. I
took lots and lots of panoramas that need to be stitched first.

Don www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Matt wrote:
If you shoot in Raw, vignetting, the dark shadow halo that appears at
the edges of the frame can be removed easily in Photoshop's Raw menu
bar. All you have to do is slide a slider after you click on the
Vignetting tab.

That depends on how bad the vignetting is. Usually vignetting caused by
a crooked lens hood appears in only one half the picture and sometimes
the corners are very dark -- you are actually looking at the hood.
Photoshop is good, but it does not have x-ray vision.

Mitigating the effects of vignetting is not the same as having a good
corner to corner picture that needs no adjustments. No adjustment will
restore missing details.