OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I think you nailed it, Jerry. Probably very few sold separately. BTW, they're Jen you wine carbon fiber, not some cheap-ass plastic, and the one for my 400mm f/2.8 is only $600. That makes a $450 carbon fiber tripod a real bargain.

jcboy3

That lens hood isn't really very large; I would keep it and use it most of the time. Take it off when adjusting polarizer or graduated ND filters. But its good for protection. As for flare; it's pretty useless. It has to be shallow to avoid vignetting for wide angle, so it doesn't help when you are shooting telephoto. I would get a second, deeper lens hood for telephoto shots where the sun or lights are in front of you. Collapsible rubber ones can have a couple of different depths, so are more flexible. Of course, they don't offer protection from bumping.

As far as protection; this is up to you. Some people are klutzes and bang or drop their cameras repeatedly; other people are careful and don't have to worry.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Leica V-Lux 4 does not have a "fixed telephoto lens".

It has a non-interchangeable, extreme range, wide-to-normal-to-long-telephoto zoom lens. 24X in fact. It has equivalent to a 25mm to 600mm zoom (as compared to full frame or 35mm film camera).

That type of lens is quite difficult to shade very effectively with a lens hood. The hood for a 25mm equiv. lens needs to be shallow and wide.... while the hood for a 600mm normally should be quite deep. It's also an f2.8 lens throughout the focal length range, which very likely makes it more susceptible to flare. So, I'd recommend using whatever hood is supplied with the camera (which really isn't all that big... Heck, I've got two lenses with hoods large enough that your entire camera could be hidden inside them.)

I use lens hoods 99.9% of the time.

The only time I don't use one is when it's in the way because I'm shooting super close to a window or fence or other object, or if it's partially obstructing a flash (though I'll usually move the flash first, if possible).

Other than that, a properly fitted lens hood cannot possibly do any harm, can only help images in a number of ways. It's also the best physical protection for the lens and camera when shooting (a reversed hood and lens cap is the best protection when storing the gear). It's much better than a "protection" filter, for example. After all, how much can be expected from a thin, fragile piece of glass! Most hoods these days are made from "high impact plastic", which is quite good handling the occasional bump. (I can't recall breaking one in recent years, though any of my lens hoods look rather beat up.... Better them than the lens or the camera!)

I have a Canon 10-22mm lens that uses a rather obnoxiously large lens hood (sort of like a small Frisbee!). When I first got the lens I thought since it's an unusually flare resistant lens and the matching hood is rather shallow anyway, maybe I could just get by without the hood. So I shot some tests without and with the hood:



Obviously, even though it's shallow and a bit of a pain to pack in my camera bag, that hood is quite effective.... So now I carry and use it just as religiously as I do the hoods for all my other lenses. (Note: the clouds moved with the breeze between the two shots above... not the camera and lens.)

My recommendation to you and anyone else is and always will be to get and use a well matched lens hood as much as possible. It is just plain "good technique" to do so. Can't hurt and will very often help your images. It will offer some physical protection for your gear against accidental bumps and drops, too.

I've gotten so much in the habit of using a hood that I'd feel pretty lazy and careless not using one. The dumbest thing of all is when I see someone shooting with the hood still reversed in the storage position on their lens. I see one photographer often at certain events who's in the habit of doing that.... That just seems utterly stoopid to me! Why even bother carrying the hood around on the lens, if you never use the damn thing!

Note: Particularly if you use filters, using a lens hood is important. Filters increase the risk of flare, which the hood can help prevent. It can be a bit of a pain with a Circular Polarizer or similar that you need to adjust and might need to remove the hood temporarily to do so.... But those are multi-layer filters that are the most at risk for flare, so will typically get the most benefit from using a hood. One possible solution with a CPL or other type of filter that needs to be rotated to adjust it is to use a screw-in lens hood that you can rotate along with the filter. Another solution in a few cases is a little cutout or "door" in the underside of the hood, that allows access to the filter without removing the hood.

Rubber lens hoods may or may not be very useful. For one, it can be hard to find one that's a good match for a lens. They also generally don't give much protection against bumps. But, one time they can be quite useful is when you have to shoot through glass, such as an airplane window or at an aquarium. Pressing the rubber hood right up against the window minimizes veiling flare and can make the difference whether an image is usable or not. You can do that with a rigid hood, too... but the flexibility of a rubber hood allows some movement of the camera that otherwise isn't possible. This can be especially helpful if using flash. And, shooting through the window of an airplane, car, boat or train, a rubber hood also will help isolate the camera and lens from vibrations that would otherwise ruin images.

P.S. "Petal" or "tulip-shaped" hoods have become widely popular, especially on zooms. They are most frequently used on wider focal lengths, but also can be useful on primes and telephoto zooms to allow a hood to be effective, yet reasonably compact. For example, the hood for the Canon 28/1.8 hardly adds any size to the lens at all when reversed to store it, but works quite well. Though less needed on telephoto zooms, a petal-shaped hood also might be used to help keep it reasonably compact. For example, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lenses use a petal.... while their smaller 70-200mm f4 zooms do not. The only "problem" with petal-shaped hoods is that they generally need to be bayonet mounted, to insure correctly positioning the notches in the hood at the corner of the image area and prevent vignetting.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

I wonder if something has been largely left out with the attention here falling on point sources of light.

Daylight bounces around and comes from all directions, even if the sun is behind you.
Ditto for studio.
And we know there is (ambient) light pollution at night.

So it seems to me that a lens hood minimizes stray light by absorbing and blocking.
Stray light?? I'll define stray light as light that is traveling way off the lens' center axis.
The issue with stray light is its entering the lens barrel and reflecting internally off of lens elements.

The additional control delivered by the hood could lead to improved contrast and color rendition.
In turn, this would make intrinsic resolution delivered by the lens less obscured.
Don't know about sharpness...

Not that I have enough experience to actually know.
So what part of unnecessary am I missing?

Just read the posts from whitewolfowner, amfoto1, and speters, which do not contradict this one.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

That's the main drawback that I have encountered. All the other positive characteristics reported by the others are corrrect. My lens hoods have saved a number of images for me that sun on the front lens element would have ruined. And....there have been inumerable times the hoods have protected the lens when carrying the cameras.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The only time I don't use one is when doing macro work which requires the lens to be very close to the subject. Any other times is on the lens. That's just one more thing I don't have to worry about forgetting to do when I'm concentrating on taking a photograph.
--Bob

MtnMan Loc: ID

They have used ones for $699!

IowaGuy Loc: Iowa

Heck, I don't think the wind ever stops blowing here especially since we moved up out of the Mississippi River Valley to the highest location in the county. No fans needed, just open two windows and you have an instant wind tunnel. ;-)

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I'm sure you don't miss it, when it's not blowing. Unless it's HOT.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

when the sun is at an angle the lens hood prevents lens flare. A uv filter, when the sun is at the side creates flare....A uv filter protects the lens if its dropped, which is why I use a lens hood for protection in case I drop it as I no longer use a UV filter.

whitewolfowner

Great response and all very true. One problem with it though, when you used the hood, you lost the UFO in the photo! LOL

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA

One comment on the tulip lens hood and in fact any hood which comes with the lens. A hood on a zoom lens must be designed for the widest angle. I do seem to remember hoods which zoomed in the old days but it's been so long I'm wonder if I'm imagining them. The thing in my mind that started me on this comment is an experience I've had only once but my hood got turned about 45 degrees and while I'm looking at my subject my corners had turned black. Make sure the tulip is mounted correctly.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

It's like carrying my wallet - I just use the lens hood on the lens 100% of the time.

TexasBadger Loc: Wylie, TX

According to Ansel Adams, you should always use a lens hood.