1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should I always use a lens hood?

Discussion in 'Lens Matters' started by Bazarchie, Sep 19, 2020.

  1. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Maybe new L's come with hoods, to my knowledge, none of the EF-S or EF-M lenses do.
    RogerMac likes this.
  2. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Possibly it's only the EF versions that have hoods.
  3. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    I think you are correct.

    Just looked up the price for a replacement Canon hood for the 16-35 L is, £45 and if you want the polarising filter, £209.
    RogerMac likes this.
  4. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    What he said ^.

    I also sometimes use my Akubra as an additional shade if the sun is creeping onto the inside of the hood. This happens quite often, as I do like oblique lighting.
    RogerMac likes this.
  5. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Yes all my lenses came with hoods and all are EF and L.

    Try looking up the cost of the hood on the 500 F4 :) I last looked - I suppose 5 years ago - and it was £700 then, it is made of titanium. I make sure it is fastened on tight before the lens gets pointed over a fence/wall/bridge/drop
    Bazarchie, RogerMac and EightBitTony like this.
  6. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    That should really be a dislike but we don't have one
  7. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Yes, the cost of buying an OEM hood must be tens of times (approaching a hundred?) more than it costs the manufacturer to include the hood with the lens as standard when they do that. And to whatever extent the hood reduced flare, increased clarity and contrast and kept the front element cleaner, it would also help the photographer think they’d got a slightly better-performing lens for their money. Sadly it's not just Canon that omits them, particuarly for the more budget-priced lenses; I was disgusted to see Nikon going down that route, even though my 55-200mm "kit"-class zoom came with a hood included a decade ago.

  8. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I bought a Tamron lens not long after I got the camera, and (because you don't get hoods with the kit lenses if you get the lenses with a Canon body), I bought a hood in preparation, only to discover that Tamron (and Sigma) do include hoods with all their lenses (as far as I can tell).

    Luckily Amazon refunded me :)
  9. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I use a big 'collapsible' rubber lens hood on many of my lenses apart from my Sigma 10-20 (because of vignetting at 10 mm) and my 80 -400 (I have a 70 mm long straight hood for this), with stepping rings for the smaller lenses. My camera body and attached Tamron 18-250 once fell from a pew in Padua cathedral and landed on the granite floor. The big rubber lens hood took the impact, and the lens and camera body were undamaged. Don't try this with a metal or plastic rigid lens lens hood.

    These hoods also offer protection from accidental damage if knocked against a wall or door frame (been there, done that, no damage done), and are very cheap too - less than £5 plus postage.


    This is an example of a 67 mm one that I use. At its shortest position it extends about 20 mm beyond the filter thread, and at its longest position extends about 60 mm beyond the filter thread. The shortest position does not cause vignetting at 18 mm on an 18-250 (27 mm equivalent on a full frame), and the hood is easily adjusted for longer lens settings. It does at much better job than the shallow 'petal' hood usually supplied with lenses like this which is useless at any focal length beyond 'wide'.

    The rubber around the metal filter thread may perish after a few thousand adjustments, but at this price that isn't a disaster (I have had this problem once, on a hood over 10 years old).

    Keep your lens safe - use a rubber.
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Why not plastic? It would give MUCH better protection than a collapsible rubber hood. My wife dropped her EOS 100 with 24-85 and the "rigid" plastic hood running over the stone bridge near Rosslyn Chapel. The combination landed on the hood and bounced a couple of times. The hood was scratched and looked a bit nibbled at, but the lens was unhurt (still works fine 20 years later) and the camera just needed a replacement mode dial. The hood absorbed almost all the impact, albeit acting something like a spring, hence the bounce. Certainly it provided vastly more protection than a collapsible rubber hood would in a drop situation. The rubber hoods are great for shooting against glass, but provide virtually no protection against drops. A metal hood may or may not provide decent protection to a lens in a drop situation - some of them would deform plastically, which would certainly protect the lens at the cost of the hood, some might deform elastically as with my wife's plastic hood scenario, and some might simply transfer the impact to the lens - but the odds are probably still on it being better than a rubber hood in a drop.

    As do metal and plastic hoods.
  11. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Agree absolutely. I'd lent my 17-40 to my son and it got knocked off a table onto a stone-flag floor with a 1Dii attached, landing lens down. Painful to watch. It cracked the plastic hood, which took the full brunt of the impact, no damage to lens or camera.
  12. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Reading some of the comments in this thread it is hard to believe that some people understand lens hoods. Despite their apparent simplicity the majority of hoods are designed for one specific lens. Rubber hoods are not optimised for any lens and will either not provide enough shading or cause vignetting. The only rubber lens hood I have is a Nikon one for the 50 f1.4 as far as I can see it folds up far too easily to provide much protection, obviously other rubber hoods may be different.

    I would much rather have the optimised shading and greater protection offered by a plastic or metal hood than the minimal protection and suboptimal shading of a rubber lens hood. However if you are happy to accept the risks, both physical and optical, of rubber lens hoods, good luck to you.
    ChrisNewman likes this.
  13. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    But for an 17-70 or 18-250 lens a rubber 'collapsible' lens hood is the is the only type that offers some adjustment to its length. The 'petal' hoods supplied with these lenses are useless at anything beyond the short end of the zoom.

    It is important to be aware that there are two types of 'collapsible' rubber lens hoods. One type is shallow and designed for wide angle lenses, the other (the type I refer to) extends to from about 20 mm to about 60 mmm (on a 67 mm size) and is ideal for a 17-70 or 18-250 lens. I have no vignetting at 17 mm (APS-C half frame sensor) with a hood like this, and it offers a much longer hood for longer focal lengths.

    I understand that these lenses are not suitable for every lens - I have a straight lens hood about 70 mm long that I use on an 80-400. I found one with a filter thread at the front so that it can be left permanently attached to the lens, and the original lens cap now fits the front of the lens hood.
    RogerMac likes this.
  14. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    It can do, if there's anything for the light to reflect off, or other bright light sources.
    Hoods can make a big difference at night, when the suns always out of the picture.

    I admit I don't always bother, indeed I'm not sure if I even have hoods that would fit around half my lenses.
  15. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Well no, it's not. There are two other alternatives, the modular hoods that fit the end of system filter holders, or bellows hoods. Both dearer, but superior in most ways other than cheapness.
  16. Capeaker

    Capeaker New Member

    Yes, the lens help to protect the front element when doing street photography etc; I always use them.
  17. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    My f/2.8 Nikkor DSLR zoom lenses (FX 24-70mm VR and DX 17-55mm) share an ingenious design (from the shading point of view). The petal-type lens hood is mounted on the main body of the lens, rather than the zooming front element, for maximum resistance to impact damage. The front element extends furthest at the minimum focal length, and retracts through most of the zoom range, although it extends slightly towards the long end. So it shades the front element more closely, while avoiding vignetting, than any fixed lens hood mounted directly outside the front element could. And for all except the longest focal lengths, it shades more effectively than even an adjustable round hood could. But I don’t know whether this zooming design makes it more difficult to achieve a given level of optical precision. I think the two Nikkor “Z” mount 24-70mm lenses have hoods mounted directly outside the front element.

    Last edited: Sep 21, 2020
  18. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    This is not uncommon, I had a 28-70 f2.8 from Sigma that had the same arrangement. I doubt it was the only lens they made that did the same.
  19. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    No, it isn't - I have the Sigma 15-30mm, and the fixed hood works the same way. It means you can't use conventional filters, though, at least on the 15-30mm.
  20. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    I’m not sure what you mean by “conventional” filters. I don’t have any slot-in filters (which I assume would be incompatible with any lens hood), but I keep round screw-in clear protective filters on my lenses, and can add polarizers to those Nikkors without any problems.


Share This Page