How important are lens hoods?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Photography exhibit
Next: 26 GP pano
From: S.G. on 13 Mar 2010 14:12 On 13.3.2010. 15:55, Tom Hise wrote: > I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around > with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses > (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different > hood to go with it. > > My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to > miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods. > > I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends > and family and occasionally post on the web. > > Thanks in advance, > > Tom Hise > ....and it's generally not a big deal carrying them around because you can always attach them upside down to your lens.
From: NameHere on 13 Mar 2010 14:29 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:55:15 -0600, Tom Hise <nc0o(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around >with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses >(30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different >hood to go with it. > >My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to >miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods. > >I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends >and family and occasionally post on the web. > >Thanks in advance, > >Tom Hise Any lens-flare from the sun or other bright lights I've learned to effectively cancel out by just using my hand or a well-placed finger to the side of the lens. My photography style demands I pack light and be at the ready all the time. I don't have time nor space to pack extraneous accessories that will cause me to miss shots. Some will claim that a rubberized lens-hood is great damage protection, but I counter that if you don't take those "accessory" steps to protect your camera then you'll be a little more careful with it overall. If you think your camera is safe you won't pay attention to it as it's swinging against the side of a cliff wall or brick wall while hiking or touristing. If it isn't protected by hoods or daylight filters you'll pay attention and protect all of it from harm, as it should be. You won't become complacent.
From: NameHere on 13 Mar 2010 14:33 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:42:31 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:35:17 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: >: >: "Tom Hise" <nc0o(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >: news:nHNmn.415669$FK3.85435(a)en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com... >: > I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around >: > with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses >: > (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different >: > hood to go with it. >: > >: > My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to >: > miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods. >: > >: > I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends >: > and family and occasionally post on the web. >: >: Theoretically the lens hood should improve the contrast of pictures (taken >: outdoors at least) by excluding a good deal of the non-image-forming light. >: Whether you would ever be able to SEE such improvement is somewhat >: questionable, unless the sun or other bright light source were in a position >: where it would shine directly on the lens surface, and perhaps not even >: then. >: >: Personally I always use a hood -- when possible -- when shooting outdoors, >: on the principle that it may help and can't hurt, and also provides some >: physical protection for the lens. Since with the Nikkors you mention (I'm >: assuming that's what your 70-300 is as well as the 18-135) the hoods easily >: reverse on each lens for carrying, they add almost no bulk or weight, so I >: can't see any benefit to leaving them home. > >A good point that I was going to make if you hadn't. All decent lens hoods >either collapse or reverse. > >: Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) on the other hand has said he never uses >: a lens hood. But he does use his hand to shade the lens, which to me seems >: more of a bother than using a hood -- and is probably less effective >: besides, unless he paints that hand matte black. > >Does Rockwell always use a tripod? I wouldn't want to try to hold a full-size >digital camera steady with one hand. > >Bob If you had ever used a camera in your lifetime, you'd find out that that's not true. You hold it with both hands, but the hand cradling the lens is shifted to also block any flare, or just using one or two fingers to accomplish the same. Now kindly go back to your other newsgroups where you won't be outed so easily for the armchair-expert-only that you are.
From: NameHere on 13 Mar 2010 14:34 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:27:23 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: > >"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message >news:dbjnp5dkh5bnp2v0uur9d9ooi3c690s965(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:35:17 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> >> wrote: >> : >> : "Tom Hise" <nc0o(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> : news:nHNmn.415669$FK3.85435(a)en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com... >> : > I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul >> around >> : > with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses >> : > (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a >> different >> : > hood to go with it. >> : > >> : > My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely >> to >> : > miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods. >> : > >> : > I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show >> friends >> : > and family and occasionally post on the web. >> : >> : Theoretically the lens hood should improve the contrast of pictures >> (taken >> : outdoors at least) by excluding a good deal of the non-image-forming >> light. >> : Whether you would ever be able to SEE such improvement is somewhat >> : questionable, unless the sun or other bright light source were in a >> position >> : where it would shine directly on the lens surface, and perhaps not even >> : then. >> : >> : Personally I always use a hood -- when possible -- when shooting >> outdoors, >> : on the principle that it may help and can't hurt, and also provides some >> : physical protection for the lens. Since with the Nikkors you mention >> (I'm >> : assuming that's what your 70-300 is as well as the 18-135) the hoods >> easily >> : reverse on each lens for carrying, they add almost no bulk or weight, so >> I >> : can't see any benefit to leaving them home. >> >> A good point that I was going to make if you hadn't. All decent lens hoods >> either collapse or reverse. >> >> : Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) on the other hand has said he never >> uses >> : a lens hood. But he does use his hand to shade the lens, which to me >> seems >> : more of a bother than using a hood -- and is probably less effective >> : besides, unless he paints that hand matte black. >> >> Does Rockwell always use a tripod? I wouldn't want to try to hold a >> full-size >> digital camera steady with one hand. > >I suppose he might wrap his left hand around the very front of the lens in >such a way that it shades the lens and still helps support the camera, >though that seems very awkward to me. I've never tried it. Of course you haven't. You've never held one camera in your life. You've just made that painfully obvious to everyone.
From: NameHere on 13 Mar 2010 14:36
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:26:34 +0100, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >I discovered the importance of lens hoods when I was in a cave taking >some photos with long exposure times. It was very dark and there was a >relatively strong light source from the side (the cave opening). In that >situation the lens hood made really a huge difference. If needing to pack light, a lens-cap and piece of tape will do the same. |