When should I use/not use a lens hood? I have always left the lens hoods on all my lenses while shooting indoors and out, but recently when I attended a "shootout" at a modeling show I...

NewzShooter Loc: Las Vegas, NV

I have always left the lens hoods on all my lenses while shooting indoors and out, but recently when I attended a "shootout" at a modeling show I noticed almost all of the photogs removed their lens hoods. Is there a reason for this? When should I remove my lens hood and when should I keep it on the lens while shooting? I would imagine there was a "reason" most of the photographers removed their hoods. Can anyone explain?

GreenReaper

Beats me about taking the lens hood off. I'd leave it on, especially one of the soft rubber ones, acts as a sock absorber if you knock it against something (or somebody).

Winpix

The only reason I can think of is to make the lenses more compact in a crowded environment. a lens hood has 1 primary function and that is to keep light from striking the front element of the lens. Depending on the lighting being used during the event it is possible there was no need for a lens hood, but when I shoot in studio a hood allows much more freedom of light placement.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

GreenReaper is correct, leave it on, it does make an excellent shock absorber. I dropped my camera a few months ago and all that happened was a slight scuff on the lens hood.

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

Depending upon the lens and hood and your flash, you may need to remove it for flash.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

NewzShooter wrote:

I have always left the lens hoods on all my lenses while shooting indoors and out, but recently when I attended a "shootout" at a modeling show I noticed almost all of the photogs removed their lens hoods. Is there a reason for this? When should I remove my lens hood and when should I keep it on the lens while shooting? I would imagine there was a "reason" most of the photographers removed their hoods. Can anyone explain?

I bet it's because they don't want or need another two or three inches sticking out in front. They control their lights, so they're not afraid of light striking the lens at the wrong angle.

dthurk Loc: Upstate NY

Would a lens hood provide any amount of protection to the front element? I don't want to put a UV filter on an expensive lens just for "protection".

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

dthurk wrote:

Would a lens hood provide any amount of protection to the front element? I don't want to put a UV filter on an expensive lens just for "protection".

The lens hood serves its primary purpose fighting the flare from the sun.......indoors, this is USUALLY not the case as flags and gobos are used to control studio light. The fact the hood can protect the glass is secondary to it's primary purpose....but a good one at that. Also, on-camera flash with a wide angle lens plus hood can introduce dark shadows in the image caused by the hood.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

I use both a lens hood and a UV filter, UV filters a cheap enough and worth every penny.

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

johneccles wrote:

I use both a lens hood and a UV filter, UV filters a cheap enough and worth every penny.

I never use a UV filter, but, almost always a hood. No matter how good a UV filter is it can increase chances of flare.

I do use ND filters a lot and polarizing also.
I had a bad experience with an ND filter. I was shooting a waterfall and had an ND filter screwed on as well as a hood. I slipped and fell. The camera and i hit the ground hard. The lens hood was knocked off and the camera bounced and hit again on the lens end. that broke the filter and screwed up the threads on the lens. I had to send it in for repair.

Mr. B Loc: eastern Connecticut

Remember that the first time you inadvertently let your lens swing into something and you see the scratch on your lens face. My advice is to always have a filter over your lenses. It's cheap insurance and good filters will not adversely affect your photos.

dthurk wrote:

Would a lens hood provide any amount of protection to the front element? I don't want to put a UV filter on an expensive lens just for "protection".

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto:

johneccles wrote:

GreenReaper is correct, leave it on, it does make an excellent shock absorber. I dropped my camera a few months ago and all that happened was a slight scuff on the lens hood.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto:

Mr. B wrote:

Remember that the first time you inadvertently let your lens swing into something and you see the scratch on your lens face. My advice is to always have a filter over your lenses. It's cheap insurance and good filters will not adversely affect your photos.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto:

johneccles wrote:

I use both a lens hood and a UV filter, UV filters a cheap enough and worth every penny.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

So, you dropped your camera and lens, and the hood flew off and the filter sacrificed itself and possibly saved the lens - and this is a bad experience with a filter???

You can't join the dots to realise that the hood and the filter saved your lens?!?!?!

alandg46 wrote:

I never use a UV filter, but, almost always a hood... (show quote)