Lens hoods

[fevbusch]

  I've taken thousands of photos, using my Sigma 50mm 2.8 ex, my 40mm 2.8  ltd, my k100d camera, etc. and never used a lens hood. Should I be using them, and why.   Freddy

[blackcloudbrew]

Well, I don't know the specifics of the Sigma 50mm but the DA 40 has a lens hood on it unless you removed it. My understanding of this is that one should always (rules were meant to be broken) use a lens hood. Why? Two general reasons, 1) to protect the lens, and 2) to reduce flare. Actually reducing flare is the reason for the hoods. The fact that you haven't needed them may be what you are shooting. You shoot a lot of flowers and close ups of them. Unless the lighting is such that you might get strong sunlight from the side, you really don't need a hood, but get out in bright sun shooting landscapes and flare can and will be an issue.

Indoors I tend to remove my hoods as flare tends not to be an issue.

Looking at your lens list, your DA18-55 and DA 50-200 both come with hoods and I'd use them when I use them.

Tim

[Ron Kruger]

Lens hoods are a good idea almost all the time, and at lest one of my lenses (A 50 1.7) is terrible without it. About the only time I don't use a hood is with full macro with my 35mm Limited, and that's only because there isn't enough room in front of the lens to extend the built-in hood.
Tim is right: there are times when a hood isn't necessary, but it never hurts.
My suggestion is to set your camera on a tripod and take identical exposures with and without a hood, then compare.

[spyglass]

I would recommend (other than limited by physical conditions) to always use a lens hood. Light is bouncing and reflecting off every surface of every object around us. Any unwanted light that can reach the front element of a lens will have a negative result. Flare and glare are the obvious symptoms, but the bigger impact is the loss of contrast. Filters fitted onto the front of lenses tend to be susceptible to what some refer to as "light wash" (the illumination of a front element, glass or filter by stray or ambient light).


Spyglass

[Mike Pearson]

I'm in total agreement with Spyglass 

Mike

[Craig]

Yep, I agree, lens hoods are a must.  They come with the lens for a reason.  Shooting without one is like mowing the lawn without the catcher on the mower.  There are times when you can get by without it, but most times it just makes a mess, and the final result does not look as good.


Craig

[rei_vilo]

Thank you for the explanations. I'll try not to forget the lens hoods at home!

[mithrandir]

A third good reason for the lens hood is to keep finger oils from ruining the coating on your lenses when you mishandle your kit.

[snoid]

I bought the proper Pentax hood for my 50 1.4 and won't shoot without it anymore.
The contrast is night and day.
I wish I could find a proper one for my Sigma 28. I never had much luck with those after market rubber ones.
I vote yes to the hoods!

[fevbusch]

  Wow, thanks, guys.  I'll definitely start using my lens particularly with the zoom and maybe even
 when I shoot in my home studio.  That Sphere might be bouncing back some light against my lens.
  I'll definitely start using it more with my Sigma 50mm 2.8 prime.
      P.S.   I'm not getting e-mails showing responses to my threads and I thought you guys
 were giving up on me or I was boring, or something.  How do I get back on the response circuit.