The need for lens hoods

audiobomber · 07-08-2014, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

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!

That's true, but I'm actually quite a fan of the 49mm standard collapsible rubber hood. I use it on my FA 28mm, FA 35mm, FA 50mm and D FA 100mm. Not exclusively, I have original hoods for the 35, 50 and 100mm lenses, and the telephoto hood shown above for the 50mm, but sometimes I don't have room for all these hoods, so I just use one for everybody.

On APS-C the hood shown below is correct for the 28 and 35mm lenses. It's less ideal for the 50mm but a lot better than nothing, and is exactly like the original rubber hood sold by Pentax. The 100mm can take a much longer hood. but the front element of that lens is already recessed about an inch, so not much protection is needed. In fact at 1:1 macro, the rubber hood provides more protection than the non-extending original hood. A rubber hood allows you to easily mount and adjust a CPL (in the hood's filter ring, not on the lens).

General Brand 49mm Collapsible Rubber Lens Hood NP11049 B&H

**grhazelton** · 07-08-2014, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

In a recent Digitalrev video on Digitalrev Kai did one of his patented satires on "unnecessary" photography practices. He claimed that lens hoods were mainly a waste of space. I have always thought that the standard advice about hoods made good sense especially where I live in the Arizona desert with very bright sun. What do you think about the need for lens hoods? Are you aware of any controlled studies? Thanks for your input. In the meantime I plan to continue to use my lens hoods.

As I recall from one of the few Kai vids I could stomach, he must feel that neck straps are also unnecessary. "What a maroon!" to quote the immortal Bugs Bunny. Just wait til he drops is Canon with its L lenses on a sidewalk or in the river. I wonder, does he pay for the gear he sports??

**jbondo** · 07-08-2014, 11:03 AM

He DID INDEED already drop a Canon L zoom in one of the vids and broke the front element. I have a feeling it was also on purpose and that the show has allocated a budget towards equipment destruction.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hoods: Why aren't them all like the one for the DA21?	carrrlangas	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	09-01-2013 04:39 PM
Sports on the cheap..Need a affordable lens for XC.	Eric Auer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	08-30-2013 03:50 PM
Need suggestions for Hoods for DAL 18-55 Kit Lens and DAL 55-300mm Lens	photoleet	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-20-2011 03:15 PM
Do I need 2 lens hoods?	lovemehate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	10-16-2010 10:06 AM
Need 645 Wide Angle Lens Hoods	iCrop	Pentax Medium Format	59	04-22-2010 07:27 AM

07-08-2014, 04:37 AM	#46
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Nicolas06 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! That's true, but I'm actually quite a fan of the 49mm standard collapsible rubber hood. I use it on my FA 28mm, FA 35mm, FA 50mm and D FA 100mm. Not exclusively, I have original hoods for the 35, 50 and 100mm lenses, and the telephoto hood shown above for the 50mm, but sometimes I don't have room for all these hoods, so I just use one for everybody. On APS-C the hood shown below is correct for the 28 and 35mm lenses. It's less ideal for the 50mm but a lot better than nothing, and is exactly like the original rubber hood sold by Pentax. The 100mm can take a much longer hood. but the front element of that lens is already recessed about an inch, so not much protection is needed. In fact at 1:1 macro, the rubber hood provides more protection than the non-extending original hood. A rubber hood allows you to easily mount and adjust a CPL (in the hood's filter ring, not on the lens). General Brand 49mm Collapsible Rubber Lens Hood NP11049 B&H

07-08-2014, 07:54 AM	#47
grhazelton Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Jonesboro, GA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,972	Originally posted by Mikesul In a recent Digitalrev video on Digitalrev Kai did one of his patented satires on "unnecessary" photography practices. He claimed that lens hoods were mainly a waste of space. I have always thought that the standard advice about hoods made good sense especially where I live in the Arizona desert with very bright sun. What do you think about the need for lens hoods? Are you aware of any controlled studies? Thanks for your input. In the meantime I plan to continue to use my lens hoods. As I recall from one of the few Kai vids I could stomach, he must feel that neck straps are also unnecessary. "What a maroon!" to quote the immortal Bugs Bunny. Just wait til he drops is Canon with its L lenses on a sidewalk or in the river. I wonder, does he pay for the gear he sports??

07-08-2014, 11:03 AM	#48
jbondo Loyal Site Supportaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 503	He DID INDEED already drop a Canon L zoom in one of the vids and broke the front element. I have a feeling it was also on purpose and that the show has allocated a budget towards equipment destruction.