Lens Hoods...a necessity?

[chaman]

Okay guys and gals, here is the thing. I was looking around the web for some hoods for my lens and asked the wife what she thought of them. She took some Photography courses while in college and she told me that they were not indeed a necessity and that non of her professors used them. We had a little argument since I told her about the benefits of unwanted light flares and preservation of contrast in the pictures.

I browsed the site but could not find some kind of a before and after pic examples to see how hoods helped and show her.

What you think, are they truly a necessity or not? I was planning on getting some of those retractable rubber hoods, one for each lens, They don't seem to be pricey at least over at ebay.

[Franglais]

No they aren't a necessity. If there is one I use the petal lens hood that comes with my lenses, knowing that the hood is only efficient at the most wide-angle setting and at the tele setting it's not doing very much.

A circular rubber hood would be even worse as it doesn't follow the rectangular field of view of the camera sensor. If you fit one to a wide-angle, make sure it's designed for a wide-angle lens - if you use one designed for a "normal" lens it will cut off the corners of the image.

My plastic 18-55 that I bought second-hand doesn't have a lens hood so I've been using it without. It's a simple (7 element) lens with lots of contrast and good lens coating and so far I've had very little trouble with it

[SmartWombat]

Rubber hoods aren't much use except for fixed focal length lenses.
But they are less likely to damage people so may be required on the sidelines.

I always use lens hoods to protect the front of the lens from damage, accidentally knocking it on things. Flare is a secondary issue for me and it is only sometimes prevented by the lens hoods even on fixed focal length lenses.

Oh the answer? Yes I always use them.
But you don't need them if you have the sun over your shoulder from behind

[Dave6223]

I Always use a lens hood with my primary lenses. They may or may not reduce flare and help preserve colour saturation, but for what they cost, I'm going to keep using them. Zoom lenses on the other hand, hoods seem to be marginal, since the length of the hood would need to vary with the focal length of the lens.

[chaman]

No they aren't a necessity. If there is one I use the petal lens hood that comes with my lenses, knowing that the hood is only efficient at the most wide-angle setting and at the tele setting it's not doing very much.

A circular rubber hood would be even worse as it doesn't follow the rectangular field of view of the camera sensor. If you fit one to a wide-angle, make sure it's designed for a wide-angle lens - if you use one designed for a "normal" lens it will cut off the corners of the image.

My plastic 18-55 that I bought second-hand doesn't have a lens hood so I've been using it without. It's a simple (7 element) lens with lots of contrast and good lens coating and so far I've had very little trouble with it

Oh crap! LOL! Thats the one I ordered. The thing is that it can be adjusted. It has three positions, its retractable. I hope it doesnt end up bothering me more than helping. If at least protects the lens think is worth it.

[Dave6223]

I got one of those, they seem ok to me.

Dave

[herg]

i don't think they're a necessity, but after buying one for my 17-85, i will now buy one for every lens i'll ever own.

like smartwombat said, they're very useful for protecting the front of the lens.

i originally bought mine to try to help with lens flare (and it does), but now i'm glad i have it for the protection aspect. it also helps a bit when shooting in the rain and keeping drops off the lens.

[Franglais]

Oh crap! LOL! Thats the one I ordered. The thing is that it can be adjusted. It has three positions, its retractable. I hope it doesnt end up bothering me more than helping. If at least protects the lens think is worth it.

I have a rubber hood like that with three positions. I found I tended to forget to fold back the hood as I zoomed wide-angle (the cut-off isn't always visible in the viewfinder). Finally I cut the end off it so it was effectively wide-angle only. It made it look rather bizarre but it works, and it still protects the lens

I have rubber hoods on almost all my prime lenses.

[chaman]

Cant wait to try it then!

Thanks guys!

[Grandpaw]

Years ago my family and I were at Disney World on vacation. I was using a Nikon with a prime lens on it and was changing film and dropped the camera on the cement. It landed lens first but I had a rubber lens hood on it that took the shock out of the impact hitting the sidewalk. The lens and camera were fine and didn't even get a scratch.I can only imagine the damage if it hadn't been on the lens.I have always used lens hoods just for protection if for no other reason. I might add that I now use the petal type lens hoods that come with the lenses.

One thing that you need to keep in mind is that if you use an on camera flash and leave the lens hood on you will get a round circular shadow from the lens hood at the bottom of your pictures, so be sure and remove it if you are using the on board flash. An external add on flash will work just fine, Jeff

[realart]

Say Jeff. Everything you have said I have also experienced 1st hand. I use the petal hoods with my Nikon 70-300 & 24-85 and with the Sig 10-20. On my 50 1.8 Nikkor I got a rubber hood. For now I am just using the SB-400 flash (got it mainly for the rotating head) and yes, it does peer high enough above the petal, even with the 10-20.

I do use the hoods mainly for protection but I like to also hope there may be a bit less glare using them. That may be more a psycholgical anodyne than a fact but I am happy with the self-delusion.