Camera hood - to use or not to use - that is the question! [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

tandeejay

27-09-2016, 10:30pm

I've been reading a few lens reviews, and noticed that Ken Rockwell always makes comments like this:

"I'd leave either an 86mm Hoya Super HMC UV on the lens at all times. I would leave the hood at home."
"I never mess with hoods. I'd leave it in the box for resale time."

Why the aversion to hoods? This seems to go against others recommendations :confused013

I've always preferred to use them to cut out stray light.

ameerat42

27-09-2016, 10:34pm

How eclectic!*

*Eclectic" - read "confused".

tandeejay

27-09-2016, 10:36pm

How eclectic!*

*Eclectic" - read "confused".

Exactly my point :nod:

mikew09

27-09-2016, 11:06pm

There has been two sides to this point of view for as long as I can remember LOL. Hoods are designed and included with most pro lens for very good optical quality reasons. I did some testing with my earlier 70-200 some yrs ago and found there was definite advantage in using the hood when shooting at an event with little control over the position of the sun in as much as unwanted lens flare or glare into the lens. However, to be honest; the main reason I never venture out without a hood on my lens is protection of the front element. When I bought my first piece of Canon L glass I was paranoid about damaging the front element. I was advised by a professional photog during a discussion over the impact to image quality of using a UV filter for protection - at the time I had used a mid range quality UV filter for protection and after investigations to some IQ / focus issues found it was due to the filter. At the time he pointed me to a video showing the testing of the protection a filter actually gives and the testing revealed if the filter is impacted and breaks it is more likely to damage the front element than protect it. He went onto add that his belief was that sales people used the old "UV Filter to protect your element" phrase as nothing more than an edge to sell some more extras :-).
To be honest, I really don't care what others do ;-), I have found the hood to not only assist with lighting conditions but also a valuable aid in protecting the front element end of the lens. Just my personal point of view, not trying to convince anyone this is the best option ;-)

tandeejay

27-09-2016, 11:12pm

Thanks Mike. That is what I've been told too, and it makes perfect sense. I was just puzzled when I saw Ken Rockwell so dead against lens hoods. Maybe he has shares in filter manufacturing companies :D

Mark L

27-09-2016, 11:17pm

^ I think Mike sums it up well.:th3:
I started a thread like this ages ago and the comment by someone that sticks in my mind was that the manufactures of the lenes wouldn't make hoods if there was no reason to use them. Front lens protection is an added bonus.
And John, stop noticing Ken.:D

MissionMan

27-09-2016, 11:26pm

I've heard comments that hoods impact bokeh when the lens is wide open (I.e. Wider than f/5.6) so you should avoid using them when not necessary.

mikew09

27-09-2016, 11:34pm

Yea, I am sure Ken has his own good reason to make that statement in his own experience but I think he is a minority and it does puzzle me also. Then you have the other extreme which has caught on a bit - I remember 2 or 3 yrs ago seeing a video of that HDR guy (his name momentarily evades me), a brilliant HDR photography; who didnt use any protection at all, not even lens caps on the front when in his bag. From memory, his take was the element on quality lens was extremely tough and could cope with day to day general abuse without damage. Another theory I am not prepared to test with my gear. Took me 3 yrs to save enough to upgrade my old 70-200 so I treat it, and my other gear to that point; like a new born baby :-)

arthurking83

28-09-2016, 12:00am

..... I was just puzzled when I saw Ken Rockwell .....

An all too common situation! ;)

How can you not be puzzled when a so called landscape photographer advises not to use a tripod, and just shoot at ISO6400! :confused:
How can you not be puzzled when a so called lens reviewer strongly advises to avoid third party lens manufacturers and stick only with the branded stuff, and then exclaims loudly how good Tokina lenses are and says stuff like
".. the Sigma 18-35mm works fantastically well today .. ".. ! :rolleyes:

Reading any KR, will inevitably only result in puzzlement!

The general consensus seems to be that if KR said it, then almost certainly it'll be best to do the opposite! :p

We should call it something .. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Inverse Ken Law.

ie. Inverse Ken Law: 1/Ken = nonsense; 1/Ken = makes sense!

paulheath

28-09-2016, 6:12am

some of my " favourite " IKN quotes.........

" Fixed focal length lenses aren't needed, except for macro or super tele. The faster f/stops of fixed lenses aren't needed with digital's high ISOs.
The only pro use of the smaller [35mm] formats is news and sports "

"I know no pros who own a tripod. Why would they want one? Who wants to carry it around, much less have his compositional options encumbered by having to move this big rig from spot to spot?"

"I use mostly the P (Professional) mode"

"This 105mm VR Micro is built as well as the $1,700 70-200mm VR, and except that this 105mm can't zoom, it does exactly what the 70-200mm VR does, but better."

I could go on and on and on and on and on .......

Glenda

28-09-2016, 7:15am

I always use my lens hood for the reasons Mike has mentioned but have never used a UV filter. There always seems to be a debate about the value of a UV filter. In our camera club there are some who always have one on their lenses saying it's to protect them and a couple of times they have dropped/bumped the lens and the UV filter has cracked and lens remained perfect. I think it was Arthur who posted a video showing a guy testing both UV filters and lenses by dropping a weight on them. The UV filter broke most times and the lenses remained undamaged.

ameerat42

28-09-2016, 9:02am

I like Mike(w09)^^ (well, there no more Ike, so...)

If in doubt, try an ultra-wide without a lens hood:nod::p:p
You'll soon notice a flare (-up)!

Lance B

28-09-2016, 9:37am

Physioz

28-09-2016, 3:39pm

I'm not yet at the level where I *always* remember to put my lens hood on. I have even been stopped (twice) by people who knew what they were talking about (sounded like it at least) and told to put my lens hood on. I kid you not, one of them, a large barrel-chested guy could have been a RSM in the special forces **; he started with a stern dressing down and told me that I didn't deserve to own a good lens (Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II) if I couldn't be bothered to put a hood on it. I was gobsmacked and gasping a bit like a fish out of water. He mellowed, told me he was joking, and proceeded to tell me why I really should considering using it all the time - flare/protection! I'm much better at remembering now.

** Maybe he was; close to Swanbourne Beach in Perth at the time.

arthurking83

28-09-2016, 9:08pm

...... he started with a stern dressing down and told me that I didn't deserve to own a good lens (Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II) if I couldn't be bothered to put a hood on it. .....

LOL! that could have been me!(obviously in another healthier, much, fitter life! :p)

But I've done that myself to some tourists that I've helped along the way.
One Japanese couple in the botanical gardens one day, they asked me to take their photo with their lil D3000-ish camera, and I told them "should leave hood on .. this way"(and put it on the correct way).
They wanted me to take their photo in front of a particular scene, and I oriented them a little to the left and mentioned "that the sun will make image look bad" .. I'm pretty sure they kind'a understood.
Hopefully they took some of that info on board.

Another time at Wilsons Prom, a euro couple happened along at a spot I was taking some sunset shots. They didn't even have the hood on the lens, but packed in some inaccessible spot in the van.
Told them don't shoot directly into the sun, use an angle here, lens hood shades the sun, better images .. etc.

Basically as Lance said .. lens hood offer contrast increases that can be significant for many situations.

Mark L

28-09-2016, 10:52pm

Hoods are ALWAYS on my lenses, they increase contrast and protect the lens front element from damage. Never use "protection" filters as they have the ability to reduce IQ, and a hood can work just as well for protection.
Things couldn't really be this simple could they??
And there's really nothing else to say for most of us.:nod:

Hamster

29-09-2016, 10:29am

I've heard comments that hoods impact bokeh when the lens is wide open (I.e. Wider than f/5.6) so you should avoid using them when not necessary.

Really? How does that work then?

some of my " favourite " IKN quotes.........

" Fixed focal length lenses aren't needed, except for macro or super tele. The faster f/stops of fixed lenses aren't needed with digital's high ISOs.
The only pro use of the smaller [35mm] formats is news and sports "

"I know no pros who own a tripod. Why would they want one? Who wants to carry it around, much less have his compositional options encumbered by having to move this big rig from spot to spot?"

"I use mostly the P (Professional) mode"

"This 105mm VR Micro is built as well as the $1,700 70-200mm VR, and except that this 105mm can't zoom, it does exactly what the 70-200mm VR does, but better."

I could go on and on and on and on and on .......

Don't forget this one from his site

" I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax....... A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Kym

29-09-2016, 10:44am

Ken Rockwell????????????? FLIP CHICKS!!!

All KR references should be removed as they are notoriously unreliable.

Refer http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm quote:

This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

not a "logical presentation of fact." sums up KR

MissionMan

29-09-2016, 10:51am

Really? How does that work then?

Don't forget this one from his site

" I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax....... A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/52126/what-is-the-cause-of-this-non-uniform-bokeh-effect

Have a look at where the graphic called optical vignetting and then think of a hood in place and how this could impact it. As mentioned, not sure if it's correct. Only reason I knew about this was when I got my 70-200 I was confused about the cats eye bokeh on the edges when wide open and some of the responses seemed to indicate the hood could have an effect. If you think about the shaped bokeh lens hoods you can buy that make heart shapes, diamonds etc then there could be some truth because even when the hood is out of view, it still impacts the bokeh

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ameerat42

29-09-2016, 10:57am

Ta for the illustration, MM.

Hamster

29-09-2016, 7:07pm

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/52126/what-is-the-cause-of-this-non-uniform-bokeh-effect

Have a look at where the graphic called optical vignetting and then think of a hood in place and how this could impact it. As mentioned, not sure if it's correct. Only reason I knew about this was when I got my 70-200 I was confused about the cats eye bokeh on the edges when wide open and some of the responses seemed to indicate the hood could have an effect. If you think about the shaped bokeh lens hoods you can buy that make heart shapes, diamonds etc then there could be some truth because even when the hood is out of view, it still impacts the bokeh

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for that, interesting. I read that as the lens hood can cause a problem when it's too long, as the images show from the person who used a 56 mm hood and also extended it. But the correct lens hood looked the same as no lens hood to me. The optical vignetting effect looks to be caused by light from a wide angle passing through a large aperture to give a lens shaped projection through a circle. Again, not a lens hood effect as far as I can see.
My understanding is that the shape of the bokeh is controlled by the shape of the hole the light passes through, hence why more lens blades on a diaphragm gives bokeh that seems rounder, since the straight edges of the hole produced are not as apparent. I've not seen shaped lens hoods for bokeh, are you sure you don't mean the covers that you can put over the end of the lens that have a heart or a diamond shape cut in them? These produce heart or diamond shaped booked because they create a shaped hole for the light to pass through (like a diaphragm).

MissionMan

29-09-2016, 7:12pm

Thanks for that, interesting. I read that as the lens hood can cause a problem when it's too long, as the images show from the person who used a 56 mm hood and also extended it. But the correct lens hood looked the same as no lens hood to me. The optical vignetting effect looks to be caused by light from a wide angle passing through a large aperture to give a lens shaped projection through a circle. Again, not a lens hood effect as far as I can see.
My understanding is that the shape of the bokeh is controlled by the shape of the hole the light passes through, hence why more lens blades on a diaphragm gives bokeh that seems rounder, since the straight edges of the hole produced are not as apparent. I've not seen shaped lens hoods for bokeh, are you sure you don't mean the covers that you can put over the end of the lens that have a heart or a diamond shape cut in them? These produce heart or diamond shaped booked because they create a shaped hole for the light to pass through (like a diaphragm).

Yup. I meant the covers for the front although I've seen them packaged as strap on hoods, but the point was that if you can take a photo where the heart shaped bokeh hood doesn't impact the photo (i.e. you have a rectangular photo which is not cut off) , but impacts the bokeh then it would also seem logic that a hood could have some impact on it even if it is out of frame.

Hamster

29-09-2016, 7:38pm

Yup. I meant the covers for the front although I've seen them packaged as strap on hoods, but the point was that if you can take a photo where the heart shaped bokeh hood doesn't impact the photo (i.e. you have a rectangular photo which is not cut off) , but impacts the bokeh then it would also seem logic that a hood could have some impact on it even if it is out of frame.

Ah, ok. I don't look at it that way To me, the only things that have been shown to affect the bokeh, are things that can directly intercept light on its way to the sensor. So a cover to produce shaped bokeh, a diaphragm or the wrong/extended lens hood on a lens. To me, a correctly sized lens hood is outside of the field of view of the sensor (outside of that upper dotted line in the optical vignetting diagram you referred to) and so cannot affect/distort light or bokeh. It would have be sized as such by the manufacturer would't it?

arthurking83

29-09-2016, 8:34pm

The corr4ect lens hood shouldn't affect bokeh quality nor shape.

What lens hoods can do tho is to add slightly to vignetting effects of certain lenses.
I used to have a Sigma 70-300 lens about 20+ years ago, and it's non petal(ie. fully round) shaped lens hood, and I'm sure it added to vignetting at the 70mm end of the focal length.
Obviously it was just a tad too deep for a round style hood.

Longest lens hood I have in my lens collection is the Nikon 105VR, which is also a fully rounded shape and very deep. I use it all the time, but can't say that I've noticed if it adds any more vignetting or not when the lens is wide open and focused in a particular manner either.

Steve Axford

30-09-2016, 12:41pm

Actually, Arthur, I can see that a lens hood could effect the quality of the bokeh at the edge of frame. I have noticed with some very oof areas that patches of light that are well outside the frame can effect the bokeh. This is not to say that it is a bad effect, but it could provide a type of vignetting in extreme cases.