leftj Loc: Texas

Is lens hood recommended for a Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro lens under certain or all conditions?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'd say only under certain. For macro work, I've removed the hood and UV filter that I normally use. Different lens, but the concept is the same.
--Bob

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

You might get a shadow in one corner of an image, but that is fairly easy to crop out.

leftj Loc: Texas

Are you saying you might get a shadow when using a lens hood?

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Lens hoods are generally recommended for use whenever you are shooting in sunlight and its presence does not interfere with the shot. The purpose of the hood is to prevent unwanted sunlight from entering the barrel of the lens. The presence of the hood creates protection from frontal impact. As you observe other photographers you will see many using them, and some others who do not. Like most photography, it is a personal choice, use to suit your own needs.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

I keep the hoods on all of my lenses, including the macro.
I only remove them to clean the front element of the lens.
I've never heard a convincing argument for not having a hood on a lens, with the exception of 180 degree fish eye lens.
If you have the correct hood for a lens there should not be any vignetting.

leftj Loc: Texas

Thanks! An on point answer which I appreciate.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

I have an older macro lens with the lens set so deep that the part of the barrel acts as a lens hood.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

My 55mm Nikkor Macro has that type of deeply recessed front element. Since getting the 105mm macro and the 150mm f/2.8 Macro have not used the 55mm as much. I suppose I should try it again on the crop sensor D300 body.

EoS_User Loc: Oshawa, Ontario Canada

By the information I have found, Canon never even made a hood specifically for this lens.
There may be hoods that fit on it, but be sure what ever you put on does not cause vignetting.
Also as Bull Drink Water said, the front element is very deep in the barrel. A hood likely would make no difference.
I have one of these with Life Size converter and don't use a hood. This mainly due to the very short working distance from lens to subject.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If you look and see how recessed the front element is it is basically a hood. I do not have this lens but the FD is similar in construction and I cannot think of a reason for a hood on it.
If you put a filter on the front that is a different story. But I see no reason unless it is ND or CPL.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Excellent response to the question. I would like to add one comment. Lens hoods and lens caps are important for protecting the glass. The hood also prevents stray ambient light from affecting the image, such as sun glare. However, when using a 50mm macro lens, you have to be closer to the subject than with a longer focal length lens. If the sun position causes the hood to cast shadows on the subject, then it would be good to remove the hood.

Of course, you can counteract the shadows by using an external flash, positioned so it enhances the subject. I have the Nikon SB200 and generally hand-hold it.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

That particular macro lens has a deeply recessed front element, so a hood is unlikely to be necessary. While I normally recommend a hood with almost any lens, there are exceptions... and this is one of them. The design of the lens itself does a nice job protecting the front element from oblique light and/or physical bumps. Adding a hood to it merely cuts into your working space between the lens and the subject, when working with it near the max magnification/minimum focus distance. Especially if using the matching 1:1 adapter or macro extension tubes to push the lens beyond the 1:2 magnification it does on its own.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

As you focus really close the hood can/will cut off needed light to the subject - that is when I remove mine.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

This is a genre (normal macro) question as much as a Canon question. I think Nikon would say, "Generally, use the hood." See third paragraph for some evidence.

It is widely commented that a recessed lens such as yours reduces the need for a hood so that a hood may be pointless, though a hood may be available. An article I read last night about a comparable macro lens to yours, Nikon's 55mm f/3.5, says as much: "La longue rampe très enveloppante est caractéristique de ce genre d’objectif, et rend le pare-soleil à peu près inutile." http://www.dg77.net/photo/nikon/micro05535.htm

A similar Nikon macro example is the Nikkor 55mm f/3.5. I've noticed my 50 1.4 Auto F hood fits that early Nikkor lens. The HN-3 hood and its variant fit, as well, and Nikon targeted this hood at the 55mm f/3.5, according to a hood box I have. That said, I try to always use a hood. Wish I knew why Nikon wants me to use the HN-3 hood but they certainly do.

A good example of a macro lens with high potential for interfering with the light, even without a hood, is the 40mm DX macro from Nikon. Common sense says Nikon would recognize the interference issue, and I seem to recall that my 40mm manual touches on the matter.