Those flower petaled lens hoods

kshapero · 12-08-2011, 03:55 AM

The flower petaled lens hoods sure takes up a lot of space and really gives my K-5 the big boy look which I would like to minimize. Anybody shooting hoodless?

**rbefly** · 12-08-2011, 04:24 AM

Hello kshapero,
I agree that the newer-style lens hoods are awkward to fit in the bag, but most of the DA hoods do fit backwards on the lens (when not in use), making them fatter, but not longer.
Some like the big boy or "Pro" look, some don't. I see it as a necessity, neither good nor bad. Gotta have'em, unless you like buying new replacement glass, enjoy lens flare, haze, ghosting and stray light glare.
A lens (and the camera, for that matter) is a tool. But many tools can stand a bit of mistreatment and survive. Not optics and/or electronics. In addition to the optical advantages provided by a lens hood (and a UV or Skylight filter) which become glaringly (bad pun!) obvious the first time you shoot in bright sunlight without one, they prevent damage to the front element. A chip, ding, scratch or any mark at all, you're done.
Pros don't use lens hoods to impress people. They use hoods because they know what they're doing.
My suggestion? Learn to love your hoods and buy a bigger bag.
Ron

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-08-2011, 05:24 AM

shooting hoodless, even with SMC can lead to excessive flare and lost contrast.

bdery · 12-08-2011, 05:51 AM

If you plan on shooting without dramatic light sources, or at small apertures, a hood is less necessary. Some lenses are also designed in a way that a hood is not necessary (think F50 f1,7). But if you own the hood, why not mount it and be done with it?

JinDesu · 12-08-2011, 06:09 AM

Most new lenses out there have reversible hoods anyways.

Docrwm · 12-08-2011, 06:48 AM

You're getting solid advice here. Hoods are essential for many lenses optically in order for them to perform at their best. They also offer some serious protection to the lens. If you do not like the rigid ones they there are collapsible rubber hoods that can be used instead and they do not cost too much. I would suggest that you get one and try it out. Even if you do not like it the cost will be negligible and you might even like them better than the OEM rigid ones.

Edgar_in_Indy · 12-08-2011, 07:42 AM

Next time the sun is shinning in your eyes, and you can't see anything through the glare until you put a hand on your forehead to shade your eyes, or flip the visor down in your car, just think about the same thing happening to your lens. As amazing an optic as the human eye is, it still suffers when hit directly by a strong light source such as the sun. Your best lenses will do no better.

Not to mention the physical protection the lens hood provides. This is probably one of the reasons are eyes are recessed into our face.

Which lens are you talking about? You may be able to find a shorter hood for it. Although it may be a compromise in certain conditions, it would still be much better than no hood. You could also look into the collapsible rubber hoods. I have no experience with them, but some people like them since they make storing the lens easier.

rlw1138 · 12-08-2011, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by rbefly

A chip, ding, scratch or any mark at all, you're done.

Not necessarily.....
Dirty lens article -- personal experience backs this up (but not to the same extreme). Finger marks or dirt on the front have never affected my shots, except in the case of flare. My 70-210 has a big scratch that should appear in the lower corner but it's all but invisible.

Re-sale value is another story entirely!

**rbefly** · 12-08-2011, 01:16 PM

Hello riw1138,
You're correct, lenses with scratches can sometimes suprise the user by creating fine photos. I was overstating the case for dramatic effect. It is also necessary to clean fingerprints, dust or marks whenever possible.
But nobody WANTS to scratch a lens element and as you say, it certainly kills the resale value. A $5.00 hood on a several-hundred dollar lens seems like cheap insurance to me. Same for a skylight filter.
And the optical advantage of a hood is beyond question. Poor contrast, flare, haze, ghosting are all reduced or eliminated by a hood.
My experience is, most of the abuse a lens takes is when we're carrying the camera by the strap, over the shoulder. Not while taking photos or (obviously) not while in the bag.
It's swinging around, bumps into doorframes, car doors, tables, anything that narrows our passage. I don't believe a lens CAP really protects it that well. A hood does a much better job.
JMO,
Ron

RioRico · 12-08-2011, 06:46 PM

Hoods are mandatory. Don't leave home without them. Even indoors, don't mount a lens without a hood. Exception: Some primes have deep front insets that function as hoods.

GeneV · 12-08-2011, 06:53 PM

There is so little to some of the flower petal hoods, that I have some doubts about how much they could possibly be helping. I can think of one set of petals for a Sigma WA zoom that is more a suggestion of a hood. Anyway, the point of the OP is one of the reasons I really like the DA Ltd primes with built-in hoods.

kshapero · 12-09-2011, 07:16 AM

OK I moved some of the dividers in my bag to fit my everyday combo of K-5 and 18-135 WR Lens. A sweet rig, dare I say.

12-08-2011, 03:55 AM	#1
kshapero Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Florida, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 437	Those flower petaled lens hoods The flower petaled lens hoods sure takes up a lot of space and really gives my K-5 the big boy look which I would like to minimize. Anybody shooting hoodless?

12-08-2011, 04:24 AM	#2
rbefly Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 2,030	Not Me! Hello kshapero, I agree that the newer-style lens hoods are awkward to fit in the bag, but most of the DA hoods do fit backwards on the lens (when not in use), making them fatter, but not longer. Some like the big boy or "Pro" look, some don't. I see it as a necessity, neither good nor bad. Gotta have'em, unless you like buying new replacement glass, enjoy lens flare, haze, ghosting and stray light glare. A lens (and the camera, for that matter) is a tool. But many tools can stand a bit of mistreatment and survive. Not optics and/or electronics. In addition to the optical advantages provided by a lens hood (and a UV or Skylight filter) which become glaringly (bad pun!) obvious the first time you shoot in bright sunlight without one, they prevent damage to the front element. A chip, ding, scratch or any mark at all, you're done. Pros don't use lens hoods to impress people. They use hoods because they know what they're doing. My suggestion? Learn to love your hoods and buy a bigger bag. Ron

12-08-2011, 01:16 PM	#9
rbefly Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 2,030	Dirty Glass? Hello riw1138, You're correct, lenses with scratches can sometimes suprise the user by creating fine photos. I was overstating the case for dramatic effect. It is also necessary to clean fingerprints, dust or marks whenever possible. But nobody WANTS to scratch a lens element and as you say, it certainly kills the resale value. A $5.00 hood on a several-hundred dollar lens seems like cheap insurance to me. Same for a skylight filter. And the optical advantage of a hood is beyond question. Poor contrast, flare, haze, ghosting are all reduced or eliminated by a hood. My experience is, most of the abuse a lens takes is when we're carrying the camera by the strap, over the shoulder. Not while taking photos or (obviously) not while in the bag. It's swinging around, bumps into doorframes, car doors, tables, anything that narrows our passage. I don't believe a lens CAP really protects it that well. A hood does a much better job. JMO, Ron

12-08-2011, 06:53 PM	#11
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	There is so little to some of the flower petal hoods, that I have some doubts about how much they could possibly be helping. I can think of one set of petals for a Sigma WA zoom that is more a suggestion of a hood. Anyway, the point of the OP is one of the reasons I really like the DA Ltd primes with built-in hoods. Last edited by GeneV; 12-08-2011 at 08:06 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens hoods	miltona580	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	8	04-04-2011 03:27 AM
Lens hoods.. when to use?	VHDEL	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-16-2010 05:15 AM
Lens hoods?	matsui255	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	11-29-2010 06:43 AM
Do I need 2 lens hoods?	lovemehate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	10-16-2010 10:06 AM
lens hoods	beer_nuts	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	06-21-2010 09:33 AM

12-08-2011, 05:24 AM	#3
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	shooting hoodless, even with SMC can lead to excessive flare and lost contrast.

12-08-2011, 05:51 AM	#4
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,362	If you plan on shooting without dramatic light sources, or at small apertures, a hood is less necessary. Some lenses are also designed in a way that a hood is not necessary (think F50 f1,7). But if you own the hood, why not mount it and be done with it?

12-08-2011, 06:09 AM	#5
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Most new lenses out there have reversible hoods anyways.

12-08-2011, 06:48 AM	#6
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	You're getting solid advice here. Hoods are essential for many lenses optically in order for them to perform at their best. They also offer some serious protection to the lens. If you do not like the rigid ones they there are collapsible rubber hoods that can be used instead and they do not cost too much. I would suggest that you get one and try it out. Even if you do not like it the cost will be negligible and you might even like them better than the OEM rigid ones.

12-08-2011, 07:42 AM	#7
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Next time the sun is shinning in your eyes, and you can't see anything through the glare until you put a hand on your forehead to shade your eyes, or flip the visor down in your car, just think about the same thing happening to your lens. As amazing an optic as the human eye is, it still suffers when hit directly by a strong light source such as the sun. Your best lenses will do no better. Not to mention the physical protection the lens hood provides. This is probably one of the reasons are eyes are recessed into our face. Which lens are you talking about? You may be able to find a shorter hood for it. Although it may be a compromise in certain conditions, it would still be much better than no hood. You could also look into the collapsible rubber hoods. I have no experience with them, but some people like them since they make storing the lens easier.

12-08-2011, 07:47 AM	#8
rlw1138 New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: N. IL Posts: 14	Originally posted by rbefly A chip, ding, scratch or any mark at all, you're done. Not necessarily..... Dirty lens article -- personal experience backs this up (but not to the same extreme). Finger marks or dirt on the front have never affected my shots, except in the case of flare. My 70-210 has a big scratch that should appear in the lower corner but it's all but invisible. Re-sale value is another story entirely!

12-08-2011, 06:46 PM	#10
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Hoods are mandatory. Don't leave home without them. Even indoors, don't mount a lens without a hood. Exception: Some primes have deep front insets that function as hoods.

12-09-2011, 07:16 AM	#12
kshapero Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Florida, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 437 Original Poster	OK I moved some of the dividers in my bag to fit my everyday combo of K-5 and 18-135 WR Lens. A sweet rig, dare I say.