[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.

---

Last edited by Mikesul; 07-04-2014 at 06:46 AM.

[robjmitchell]

A lens hood helps protect the lens from physical damage while potentially improving image quality.
A UV filter helps protect a lens from physical damage while potentially harming image quality.
A lens hood generally helps when there is bright light that would shine on the surface of the lens and is obviously more of a problem with wide angles than tele lenses.

[DSims]

A lens hood helps protect the lens from physical damage while potentially improving image quality.
A UV filter helps protect a lens from physical damage while potentially harming image quality.
A lens hood generally helps when there is bright light that would shine on the surface of the lens and is obviously more of a problem with wide angles than tele lenses.

This is exactly why I use one - since I don't use a filter, and hoods can absorb impact better than a filter (which, astoundingly, tends to shatter into glass shards that scratch your front element). Plus it's a lot easier to use than holding my hand up between the sun and the camera.



Controlled studies? Just do your own. You're in the perfect climate. Take a photo during the day where you can physically see the sun glaring off your front lens element. The shade the lens with your hand. Observe how the second photo is less washed-out looking.

Perhaps this is one additional reason the DA*50-135 takes such good photos. The lens hood is so long it's very unlikely the sunlight will fall on the front element. Likewise, I love it in the rain - it's extremely difficult for raindrops to land on the glass (assuming you don't point the lens up)!

OTOH, when I took photos of a casual elementary school class play (indoors) the other day with this lens, I intentionally left the hood in the car, so as not to make the lens look obnoxiously large.

[fgaudet]

+1 for protection that's for sure. They make very nice "umbrellas" when it rains, keeping rain drops away from the front element.

But it's true that in most case regarding IQ they are not required... I usually have mine on when I'm outside shooting stuff, it doesn't hurt when it's there but it would suck if it is needed and 100km away, on the coffee table.

With lenses with lesser or no coating (or older lenses) it can improve the contrast quite a bit. But on some other lenses I never quite saw any difference in IQ/Flare/ghosting/contrast with or without it.

[Digitalis]

In a recent Digitalrev video on Kai di one of his patented satires on "unnecessary" photography practices. He claimed that lens hoods were mainly a waste of space.

His very existence is a waste of space.

[manacho2005]

Kai shoots primarily in dense urban areas with shade, and studios where light is not directly hitting his "L" lenses. I'd like to see him try that here between the hours of 8am and 8pm.....
A hood makes a world of difference with my m50 f1.7, but very little effect to my plastic fantastic; but I have to try hard to get flare with it...

[MadMathMind]

I think you'll find it depends on the lens. I shot a F 50 f/1.7 without a hood and found the contrast to be rather poor in bright light. With the hood, it's much improved. On longer telephotos, I don't notice much of a difference.

[abmj]

Kai is an idiot. Use a hood except when shooting with on-camera flash (potential shadows) or when trying to be "stealthy" so as not to attract attention. Jay Maisel does this when doing his street photography in NYC. He claims leaving the hood off makes him look less like a professional and less intimidating to people out on the street. Who am I to argue with the master.

[Steve.Ledger]

Kai is an idiot.

And appeals to same.

Lens manufactures would not make lens hoods for the lenses they are supplied with if they were not necessary .
Has nothing to do with aesthetics or posing. If you think you look like a pro or a knob with one, that's all in your head

[kh1234567890]

Kai is an idiot. Use a hood except when shooting with on-camera flash (potential shadows) or when trying to be "stealthy" so as not to attract attention. Jay Maisel does this when doing his street photography in NYC. He claims leaving the hood off makes him look less like a professional and less intimidating to people out on the street. Who am I to argue with the master.

That's why the DA21 hood is so wonderful. It looks more like a lenscap

The problem with lens hoods on zooms is that they have to be short enough not to cause vignetting at the short focal length which makes them useless at the long end.

[magkelly]

I never used a hood in CA much at all. But here? I use one all the time. I can barely see in the direct sun here sans double sunglasses. I have a regular scripted pair and a polarized pair I wear over that. My eyes are very sensitive due to an autoimmune thing but still that's how harsh the glare can be here. It can be just brutal on the eyes and on lenses. Lens flare is something I have to deal with all the time even with my best lenses. I was never much of a polarizer person either until I moved back down to the deep south. Now I use that a lot more too. Reflected glare is a real problem for me shooting outside. It's intense, off the sidewalks, the sand, the water, the sky, without a lens shade and sometimes a polarizer I don't think I'd be able to photograph much outside here except at dawn, sunset, or on a cloudy day. Yes, they can indeed be a necessity. It depends a lot upon the conditions upon which you shoot though. The light here it kind of sucks. Back in CA I just loved it. It was just pure gold most of the time where I lived, a painter's and photographer's dream...

[TaoMaas]

In a recent Digitalrev video on Kai di one of his patented satires on "unnecessary" photography practices.

Did he list watching his videos as an unnecessary photography practice? Lens hoods can make a world of difference in the right circumstances. For me, they are a necessity. I've about decided that a person's opinion on lens hoods depends upon whether they primarily enjoy shooting frontlit or backlit subjects.

[bassek]

Hoods are a must in really sunny conditions. I have learned that the hard way.
(no I did not drop the lens...)

Seb

[jbondo]

I think manacho2005's comments are right on about Kai shooting primarily in dense urban areas with shade. HK has lots of clouds, rain, fog... I think it's also safe to call the DigitalRev series 'infotainment'. The amount of equipment he's destroyed (intentionally dropped, smashed, burned, frozen) in the series for the sake of entertainment is ... well... um, entertaining.

Personally, I don't use filters for protection except at the beach or in rain. I like as large and sturdy of a hood as possible (usually metal) except when I want to minimize the physical appearance of the gear - then I switch to a mini-hood so there is still physical protection, but small. My favorite mini-hoods are made by removing the glass from old filters.

[kdf9511]

When I was shooting with my ZX-7 I never used a hood. Back then I didn't understand the use of a hood and my dad didn't have any hoods with his K1000 setup that I learned on. Now I do use a hood if I have one for that lens. I have a few older ones that don't have hoods. However I do have uv filters on all my lenses. Out here in the dust bowl of Western Oklahoma I feel they are necessary just to protect from blowing dust/grit scratching the front element.