[mikeSF]

video had a clever tip about stringing all the hoods on the bag strap so they don't take up space in the bag.

[abmj]

video had a clever tip about stringing all the hoods on the bag strap so they don't take up space in the bag.

I was thinking the same thing. There was nothing in the video I didn't know but that tip was worth the view. I'm thinking of trying it.

[DSims]

adding a hood to my DA35 just make it more bulky without any real improvement and my DA50-135 hood just take to much place (and the hood doesn't prevent flare on it anyway on difficult conditions).

Have you seen the lens hood that comes with the DA*50-135? It's as long as my arm. I purposely try not to walk out of the house with it if I don't have to. I don't want to look anymore like a knob than I already am.

Perhaps you both missed this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/120-general-technical-troubleshooting/267...-recovery.html

Another real-life instance where the hood (which cracked) saved the lens from likely damage.

[mano]

Add another vote for lens hoods. Like the others here I did not do any systematic tests, but when I started using older glass (which I usually found without a hood) I noticed how stray light could ruin a shot.

Of course with modern glass the effect of shooting without a hood is much reduced to non-existent, but why risk it when modern lenses usually come with a hood anyway and it also adds physical protection?

[Nicolas06]

Perhaps you both missed this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/120-general-technical-troubleshooting/267...-recovery.html

If you read my whole post, I do not say there is no benefit of using a hood. I just explain there are pro and cons. Pro are better image quality in some cases and better lens protection (less time spend removing dust/water on bad weather too). Cons are more time spent while switching lens (for some hood design), need to carry a bigger bag, more aggressive look and the necessity to buy an extra one for lens that don't come with one (FA50, DA35, DA50...)

The hood I prefer are the one like of DA21 or DA15 because they don't take space and very conveniant to use. Theses ones I use of course!

I brought a generic hood for my FA50 and tryed it with or without and I found it just looked weird, doubled my lens size and didn't manage to improve quality noticably on my shoots. I agree that a better hood could do a better job, but it start to be tirefull as you can't even pay high money for the default pentax hood and get best result as it made for FF...

And my 50-135, it just doesn't fit my small bag with the hood and I don't want to buy a bigger bag as this would have some drawback. The 50-135 is already big and aggresive to subjects adding the hood just add another level that I feel unecessary. It is to the point that dispite I like this 50-135, I really wonder if I can replace with small primes instead. I see no problem with the FA77 hood for example...

What I didn't like is not that some people want to use hood while others do not, it the wording of some that say you are an idiot if you don't use one yourself. Others have right to not have same priorities or behavior without being called idiot...

[Kerrowdown]

nicely facing backwards when not in use

Or in use for Canon owners.

[nater]

Pro are better image quality in some cases and better lens protection (less time spend removing dust/water on bad weather too).

Better protection from light, but I don't think lens designers put any time or energy into designing a hood for physical protection - it's not a car bumper. A hood is a piece of plastic or metal that mounts to a lens to block unneeded light, that's it. While it might also happen to block some dust/water, if it's in the air (windy day in a dusty environment, sea spray at the ocean) it will get past the hood, which is where a protective filter comes in.

[Sandy Hancock]

Hoods. Every time.
Filters are for special effects.

[JeffB]

Having a well designed hood included with a lens shows me the manufacturer cared enough to provide a total "package" that makes the lens useful in all possible circumstances. The Pentax 21mm DA is a case in point. That lens is truly pleasure to use because it is compact and well protected from glare and moderate moisture with its superb hood attached.

The antithesis of this is the Nikon AF 20mm. Not only does the lens not come with a hood, but the designated hood is a sad little plastic ring that does little to reduce glare or protect the glass. I know because I used to use Nikon with that lens. The lens is great but I ended up constantly frustrated using a generic rubber hood on it that provided a bit more overhang than the OEM Nikon hood but would annoyingly stick to everything it touched.

[abmj]

What I find "interesting" here is that the less respected 3rd party lens makers often include the proper hood in the package with the lens when the high-priced "name brand" makers do not. I have owned several Sigma lenses - I have 2 in the "Art" line right now - and they have always come with a hood. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Oly and, sadly, Pentex, not so much. Extra, outrageously expensive purchase or do without.

Completely OT, but this is a lot like hotel amenities. High-end places charge extra for everything but lower-cost places like Comfort, Hampton and such always throw in wi-fi, breakfast and other things. Sorry for the OT, I travel more than is good for me and have a few issues.

[DSims]

What I find "interesting" here is that the less respected 3rd party lens makers often include the proper hood in the package with the lens when the high-priced "name brand" makers do not. I have owned several Sigma lenses - I have 2 in the "Art" line right now - and they have always come with a hood. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Oly and, sadly, Pentex, not so much. Extra, outrageously expensive purchase or do without.

Completely OT, but this is a lot like hotel amenities. High-end places charge extra for everything but lower-cost places like Comfort, Hampton and such always throw in wi-fi, breakfast and other things. Sorry for the OT, I travel more than is good for me and have a few issues.

The 1st Party lenses' coatings are so good they don't need a hood! Sigma is so utterly inferior it has to have one. Don't you know that?

But really, I'm not buying your argument. We must not mistake the mid-range for the high end. In looking at own my collection, it's only kit lenses and mid-range glass that lacks the hood sometimes. The "full" versions of the kit lenses - as well as the top end glass - seems to always include hoods.

---------- Post added 07-07-14 at 06:32 PM ----------

If you read my whole post, I do not say there is no benefit of using a hood.

Now why would I do that? If I did that I'd be completely unfit for public office, and I could never become part of most news teams either. No, no, we must take just the juicy bits and discard the rest!

And my 50-135, it just doesn't fit my small bag with the hood and I don't want to buy a bigger bag as this would have some drawback. The 50-135 is already big and aggresive to subjects adding the hood just add another level that I feel unecessary. It is to the point that dispite I like this 50-135, I really wonder if I can replace with small primes instead. I see no problem with the FA77 hood for example...

What I didn't like is not that some people want to use hood while others do not, it the wording of some that say you are an idiot if you don't use one yourself. Others have right to not have same priorities or behavior without being called idiot...

It must be a tight fit in your bag already (even without the hood) - which I can totally understand, since I'm usually stuffing my own bags to the limit. But I think the backwards hood on a DA*50-135 is pretty sleek. In any case, you can replace the DA*50-135 with the FA77 in many situations. This is a point I've often made. For me, the wider aperture makes the FA77 (or FA*85) so much more versatile that it makes up for the lack of zoom compared to the 50-135. Sometimes one is better, sometimes the other is. There's no clear winner, in my mind. They're both among my 5 "essential" lenses.



I hope others aren't saying those who forgo the hoods are idiots, but I felt like an idiot the time I thought a Nikon glass filter negated the need to have even the lens cap (let alone the hood) on my mid-range FA zoom. After all, wasn't it safe in my cheap auto-zipper-opening Canon backpack, attached to the camera with that filter on front?


As I've said before, there are definitely times I'll leave the hood off to look less conspicuous, but it's a measured risk and I'm then careful to put the lens cap on when not in use.

[audiobomber]

What I find "interesting" here is that the less respected 3rd party lens makers often include the proper hood in the package with the lens when the high-priced "name brand" makers do not.

Which Pentax lenses come without a hood? Only the really pared down offerings; DA L kit zooms, DA 35 and DA 50mm budget primes. I'm not aware of any other. The FA 50mm 1.4 was sold without a hood, but it was Pentax's only budget prime for years, selling for $199. Pentax has a good record for hoods, IMO. Does anyone else offer the cool and useful CPL port that all current Pentax hoods have?

[DSims]

Which Pentax lenses come without a hood? Only the really pared down offerings; DA L kit zooms, DA 35 and DA 50mm budget primes. I'm not aware of any other. The FA 50mm 1.4 was sold without a hood, but it was Pentax's only budget prime for years, selling for $199. Pentax has a good record for hoods, IMO. Does anyone else offer the cool and useful CPL port that all current Pentax hoods have?

I agree - in the current offerings I couldn't think of any others either. I had to go back to the F (and especially FA) primes to come up with them (FA50s, FA20, FA28, FA Softs, ...).

[abmj]

Which Pentax lenses come without a hood?

You are right. My higher end Pentax lenses have had hoods. I only threw in Pentax to be fair in my listing and I was specifically thinking of my FA 50 mm f/1.4, which was kind of a pain to hood properly. The worst offenders are the big two - Canikon. Lately, I have been similarly disappointed with Oly. I have had to buy OEM hoods for a couple of M. Zuiko m 4/3 lenses for my M5 so am a bit sensitive to the issue. I am waiting right now for an add-on hood for my new 12 mm f/2.

Pentax is better than most.

[Nicolas06]

Which Pentax lenses come without a hood? Only the really pared down offerings; DA L kit zooms, DA 35 and DA 50mm budget primes. I'm not aware of any other. The FA 50mm 1.4 was sold without a hood, but it was Pentax's only budget prime for years, selling for $199. Pentax has a good record for hoods, IMO. Does anyone else offer the cool and useful CPL port that all current Pentax hoods have?

The worst bit of DA50, DA35, FA50 hoods is that despite theses lenses are small and high quality, you loose the nice hood design of the limited that really make using hood a joy!