Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Nov 24, 2007.
Even my Nikon 18-135mm DX got Lens Hood, I wouldn't know as when to use it!
I wouldn't be sure about that Erm - I suppose it depends upon how you define "amateur photographer". I suspect there are a lot of people who take their photography pretty seriously, but for whom it is not a "primary" activity. I put myself in that category.
I rarely, if ever, set forth with the intention of just doing photography. Photography is always part of doing something else.
I have a question for next week. Do you use a filter to protect your front element or not.
Always... and this is why........
(The lens in question didn't suffer at all).
True. I feel quite naked without one.
Easy - all the time.
Don't belittle yourself - I know you can turn out a good picture if you want to.
I can assure you that my front element is well looked after, thank you very much.
I wouldn't dream of not using a filter for lens protection. Even wiping a lens is likely to lead to damage. I've several lenses more than 30 years old that have never had the front element touched.
I think you are over rating the danger and under rating the hardness of your lenses. Even relatively soft optical glass is pretty difficult to scratch, far more so than steel which we would all, the engineers amongst us excepted, consider pretty hard.
When a lens is sold with a lens hood you have no excuse for not using it. When you can't get the lens cap on or off with the hood fitted you have an excuse.
I use one all the time. It protects the front element from stray light, the weather, and damage. The only time I don't use one is when I'm using ND grads or a polariser.
I can't understand why you wouldn't use one actually. They're not heavy or inconvenient and store away on the lens easily. It's not exactly an onerous task to turn it around either.
Hands can be used for lots of things .....
...as dear old Max Bygraves would say.....
Always fit them for most of the reasons already given.
Why can't Canon provide them as standard.
why can't Canon make a decent lens cap? I'm forever chasing my caps... and as for that matter why can't Canon provide a soft lens bag for their expensive lenses or at least a decent bubblewrap one... There seems to be a lot of questions on my mind that begin with "Why can't Canon" as it seems they miss very elementary things.
But although I don't have a lens hood yet mainly because of financial stress, it seems to be the basic essential thing along with a decent lens cap that stays on the lens.
I think the advantage of a hood must be protecting the lens from weather/ chaff and providng some cover from harsh light, but I an also see when a lens hood could be very undesirable crawling about on the ground nose to nose with a beetle.
But a hood must also have the potential of adding depth to the field if well-used. When light falls directly on a lens, it tends to make a much more shallow field, I think than if you can step back into a shadow and shoot across into light, so a hood must have a similar effect. dunno
They do for many, if not all, L lenses. For consumer lenses, they keep the cost down and if we have users who don't bother with them then they'd be kicking up a stink about paying for something they feel they don't need. The fact that they are supplied as standard with pro lenses suggest that Canon and pro photographers know what they are doing...
Must admit I don't have any L series lenses and have kitted myself out with Sigma EX series lenses which so far seem to satisfy me even for A3 size prints.Can see your point about people who don't use them complaining if they pushed up the cost but Sigma manage to include them.
I always use a lenshood on 35mm and digital. It serves dual purposes, protection from flare (although I doubt the hood for my Canon 17mm F4 achieves much), and protection from knocks and rain drops on the front element or filter. I don't have any lens hoods for my Mamiya TLR or Toyo LF lenses, and as these are always used on a tripod, I use my hand to shield the lens.
I've only got one lens that has that problem with its supplied hood. I've bought a soft cover that fits over the end of the hood to make life easy. Not using the hood didn't enter my mind.
I did go some time trying not to use a hood - I used a Flarebuster instead, a flexible metal arm that held a foam disc that could be used to protect against flare. Works quite well, but misses out on all the other useful things a lenshood does, principally protecting the lens against damage far better than a so-called protection filter. These days I use them all the time with zooms, most of the time with primes (where the danger of flare is generally a lot less anyway).
Separate names with a comma.